Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
The Politics of Gay Marriage in Campaign 2008
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
AP IMPACT: Losing racehorses killed in Puerto Rico
 
 
expand

Still Stuck In Second

The double standard is alive and well; it's just more nuanced. And to those guys in New Hampshire? Iron your own shirts!

By Anna Quindlen | NEWSWEEK
Mar 17, 2008 Issue | Updated: 11:55  a.m. ET Mar 8, 2008

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: musician51 @ 03/21/2008 3:32:06 PM

    Comment: In the end, Obama is a novice compared to Hillary Clinton. Obama was born in 1961 and was 10 years old in 1971 He was 20 years old in 1981, get it? We already have a president with training wheels and we don't need a third term of this garbage.Hillary and Brak were both told Florida and Michigan were going to vote early. Hillary the wise, put her name on both ballots where Obama and his merry band of inexperienced (make us feel good with Opra crew) Goofed and did not cover his bases. Didn't pay attention to detail. This is what America will get if he wins. His blackness or her female gender I couldn't give a C_ _ _ ! We need someone with experience to see the invisible, fading away middle class. We need to attend to the engine that drives this country, the Middle Class. Without the middle class to hold this country up we are screwed!

  • Posted By: BoomerWisdom @ 03/20/2008 1:15:20 PM

    Comment: Anna Quindlen has ???hit the nail on the head??? as to the quandary Hillary is in. Given that two historically unprecedented types of candidates are competing for the same ???brass ring??? it does seem as if ???damned if she does, damned if she doesn???t??? is the biggest obstacle Clinton faces in the race. Just this week more proof of that became evident to me: Obama???s ???Reverend Wright??? dilemma. Why hasn???t the media latched onto the irony of Obama???s statement that there are some things that Reverend Wright has said that he disagrees with, when contrasted with his statement about Hillary in the February 26th Cleveland debate:

    "You can't take credit for all the good things that happened but then, when it comes to issues like NAFTA, you say, well, I ??? behind the scenes, I was disagreeing. That doesn't work," he said. "So you have to, I think, take both responsibility as well as credit."

  • Posted By: DJGriffin @ 03/17/2008 9:30:33 PM

    Comment:

  • Posted By: DJGriffin @ 03/17/2008 9:29:57 PM

    Comment: The facts

  • Posted By: pwoodies @ 03/16/2008 8:43:54 AM

    Comment: I know Quindlen is a Clinton supporter, but the contention that the challenges of sexism faced by Hillary Clinton are worse than the reality of racism in America that Obama faces is patently absurd. This success of this country was founded on racism and the slave trade. And even todya we live in an era that has witnessed the destruction of almost all the gains of the Civil Rights Movement. Racism in America is alive and Well, Anna, albeit in a new form that is insiduous and covert more often than the blatant racism of the past. You are a bright enough woman to know that racism is a far more significant problem to the country, its economy, its foreign relations, and the future of its children than the gender gap. You certainly have the right to use your column to campaign for your candidate and try to get women to your cause. But it is below the usual level of your articles to do so without addressing the fundamental issues of race in America today. Shame on you.

    • Posted By: Pearl83 @ 03/16/2008 14:05:46

      Comment: Shame on you pwoodies! It took 80 years after black men got the vote for women to vote. 80 years. Quindlen's article is not about which is worse, racism or sexism. Unfotunately, both are alive and well in America today. Quindlen rightly points out the continuing problem of sexism, and your refusal to acknowledge it is just another step in the wrong direction!

      • Posted By: barbarossa @ 03/16/2008 15:09:09

        Comment: Black men still needed to overcome Jim Crow Laws in order to be able to vote. Women were allowed to vote way before the Civil Rights Act which restored suffrage for African Americans in the southern states. The 80 years you quote is the Emancipation Proclamation (1920 - 80 = 1860), all that did was free the slaves, doesn't say anything about the right to vote. Another Clinton supporter distorting the facts to support her candidate and position, in your mind not voting for Clinton is because of sexism. Yes, the problem of sexism and racism is alive and well in America, but the reason that Clinton is behind is not because of sexism but because of her position on the issues, distortion of her experience, how she's campaigning, and the dynamics of her opponent.

  • Posted By: barbarossa @ 03/16/2008 5:08:46 AM

    Comment: I found the parable that begins this story fairly amusing. You are saying that chauvinistic world hasn't changed much and the male still wants to give the female the number two spot. Well, Hilary's action of offering Obama the VP spot is quite similar, the analogy would be that whites see blacks as taking the number two spot. Hilary of course represents the White culture and Obama the black culture. I'm Hispanic by the way, but I thought I would throw that out as devil's advocate. Aside from the McCain part I think your essay is bunk. Your trying to make a case that the reason that Hilary is not winning this nomination contest is because the USA is not ready for a female president and it is difficult for her to balance the strong aspect of a male and the softer side of a female. You say a male candidate owns all the guy stuff simply by virtue of his birth, well all your doing here is maintaining that stereo type between men and women. Then you go negative about a hypothetical political career run by Michele Obama. Didn't Hilary do the same thing? She supported her husband through his presidential runs and then she ran for Senate for her own political aspirations. The only criticism I remember was how could she run for Senator of New York if she was from Arkansas? The media started with the coronation as the Democratic front runner for the 2004 election and then when she said she would not run it became the 2008 election. In short, I think it has been because of Hilary's dirty politics, of using the kitchen sink sliming, the Rovian tactics (create a lie and keep repeating it until it becomes truth - Obama has no experience) that has her behind, also the fact that Obama is a dynamic figure that has reached out to just as many people as Clinton if not more. Saying the Obama is winning because he is black is idiotic and saying that Hilary is not winning because we are not ready for a woman president is just as idiotic.

  • Posted By: catherineooo @ 03/16/2008 1:04:02 AM

    Comment: Yes, Anna. The other reason women are comig in second in the Democratic primaries is not because Hillary Clinton isn't a strong candidate. It's because -- unfortunately for Hillary Clinton, women are in tune enough to know that the arrival on the scene someone as once-in-a-lifetime as Barack Obama is more important than gender issues in politics.

  • Posted By: Jo Chicago @ 03/15/2008 12:09:02 PM

    Comment: God save Hillary. As I have posted far and wide, there are issues with regard to the Obama candidacy that will not withstand a Republican attack. One being played out FINALLY in the MSM this week will be used by every 527 to create the utmost doubt about Obama, and legitimately raise the question about what else he hasn't told us, and what does he take us for if he thinks we buy his line that he wasn't aware?

    I thought he was supposed to be smart enough to figure out how to be president on the job,
    but he wasn't smart enough to see a deal-breaking circumstance and excise it before he entered the presidential race.

    So now we have a candidate without much real experience, who tried to dupe us, who claims he didn't know about hate speech, who runs on the primacy of "words," who prides himself on his choice in a vote he wasn't even asked to make, and he is asking us to put our confidence in him?

    Sorry, I will stick with battle-scarred, politically savvy, just as intelligent Hillary. She is not a rookie and has connections far and wide that will help her govern.

  • Posted By: Independent Thinker 2008 @ 03/15/2008 9:15:33 AM

    Comment: Also, from all the interviews I've seen of those who know Senator Clinton personally (even those who don't agree with her politically), they indicate that she is extremely affable, sensitive, intelligent and diligent. She was once described as the most known person that no one really knows. I firmly believe that her perception in the public as being so divisive is really not about her personally at all. And, how the media continues to characterizes her alleged "attacks" is completely biased. How is it that she is not allowed to say that she would be a stronger candidate against McCain because she brings a lifetime of experience and Obama does not?? When did someone's experience or lack thereof for the Presidency become out of bounds? She has spent her whole adult life in furtherance of the Democratic party and cause and now she is the one tearing it apart because some people don't want Senator Obama getting muddied in an election for the most important, challenging and poweful position in the world? It makes no sense.

    Additionally, I have spoken to people who know her personally and every single person indicates that she is caring and in her heart is a genuine public servant who wants to help improve people's lives. Unfortunately, the politics of it all eclipses these personal attributes. And, for all the talk of her diviseness, she has millions and millions of people supporting her. In fact with over 26 million votes thus far, there is less than 600,000 separating the two of them. There is obviously more to her than many are willing to see. As Bill Maher has said, "You may not find her inspirational, but there is absolutely nothing to hate about this woman. If you hate her, its more about you, than it is her." She personally has done nothing in her public service career over decades to ellicit the type of venom that is spewed. People rail against her because she stayed with a cheating husband. Give me a break. Or, they say that she is too ambitious and cunning, don't we want a president who is politically savvy and can go head to head with the dictators of the world? ren't our leaders suppose to engage in shrewd analysis to determine the best way to achief a goal? Whether its health care, energy independence, getting out of Iraq, jumpstarting the economy, I want someone who can calculate the risks, maneuver through the maze of Washington politics and get things done. "Horse-trading" in politics has been going on since the Constitutional Convention. We are all human and to judge someone so harshly as a person (their inner life) is not very moral or ethical. Shall we recall the bible about "doing unto others" and those without sin shall cast the first stone. Everyone should get off their moral high horse and realize all the sacrifices this woman has made and give her some credit.

  • Posted By: Independent Thinker 2008 @ 03/15/2008 9:13:13 AM

    Comment: This perception that Hillary is doing something that is "out of bounds" with regard to this Democratic primary is completely misguided. She has completely played fair. Senator Obama too has said things that would hurt her in the general election, such as "she's the same as McCain so there can be no change with her" and that she divides people and that her years as First Lady don't count as experience. So, is everyone saying that he can say these things ostensibly because they are "accurate,", but she cannot say that he lacks experience, which is also accurate? Give me a break. Just because she is a fighter that does not mean "she sold her soul." And, since when don't politicians manipulate the public with their spin (shall we remember "read my lips, no new taxes" or the millions of other representations politicians make? Everyone one of them does it, even Senator Obama. As a Senator, Hillary has proven that she finds common ground and establishes bi-partisan support. Both Republican and Democratic senators attest to this. Her perception of being cold and calculating is largely a factor of having been at the center of political life for 15 years and have been attacked personally for most of it. How would you stand up to that pressure? The 90s stuff was completely reactive to the Republican attempt to demonize the Clintons. Today, many Republicans including Newt Gingrich admit this was an intentional strategy. I believe this has taken hold in our collective unconscious and no one really questions it. And, when we look for further evidence of it today to support the existing views, people interpret things to find it. Whatever you want to find in someone, you will. And, even if you don't want to find it, if you are bombarded with it by the media, you start to believe it.

  • Posted By: hollywoodmikee @ 03/15/2008 3:42:23 AM

    Comment: Margret Thatcher is an example of a qualified women who would and did make a great leader. Hilbilly is the worst example I can think of to represent your gender. She is manipulative,criminaly minded,sold her soul long ago, and will stop at nothing to get the nomination. Over 50 percent of the country loathe her entensivly and will never vote for her for those reasons, not that she is a woman. Get over it.

  • Posted By: Kay Kay @ 03/14/2008 7:07:04 PM

    Comment: Hey Anna, Google "calculating Karl Rove -Clinton" so you don't get Clinton articles. Almost 9000 references. Karl Rove is constantly reffered to as being calculating. It's not reserved for women.

  • Posted By: dreakin @ 03/14/2008 3:20:07 PM

    Comment: Dear Anna,

    Did you support Elizabeth Dole in her run for the presidency? If not, why not? Your article suggests she would have been an ideal candidate for you. The bottom line is that Hillary is not suffering in this election for being a woman. She is suffering because she is wrong on nearly every issue, because she panders, and because she doesn't have a clue what people really need. Please, give us Golda Meir. Give us Margaret Thatcher. Give us Kay Bailey Hutchinson. But, please, save us from political miscreants such as Hillary.

  • Posted By: Hope1906 @ 03/14/2008 2:29:44 PM

    Comment: Save us from Hillary Clinton! Her pettiness, her manipulations, her attacking-then-playing victim, the way she used women, taking advantage of their frustrations, her going back on her pledge to play by the rules in Michigan and Florida, and the way she twists the truth--is disturbing and pathetic. She is a female George Bush--with one exception, she should know better. The Clintons damaged the Democratic Party when they were in office--Democrats were in the majority when the Clintons took office, the Congress was in Republican hand when then left.; and they are damaging it now as they seek to destroy Obama since they can't catch up to him in pledged delegates. I'm so surprised at Anna whom I've always respected. Should women support Condoleezza Rice and her tactics because she is a woman? I think the answer is, no. Then why does Hillary get a free pass. Why can't women look at Hillary as objectively as they do Condi Rice? Hillary has had consistently high negatives and no matter how many rules she changes, no matter how many false claims of victimhood she publlicizes, she will not win a general election. She is winning the "big states" only because the Party machine is behind her in those states. In my state, PA, for example--small town mayors are beholden to Gov. Rendell because he has given money to their towns--and Rendell is calling in these favors. In the 2000 and 2004 general elections, Gore and Kerry carried the "big states" but it wasn't enough to win the election. Hillary will not carry swing states like Colorado and she will not help elect down-ballot Democrats to Congress. Hillary at the top of the ticket will hurt the down-ballot Democratic congressional candidates necessary for a larger Democratic majority in Congress. Hillary has high negatives because she has earned them, not because she is a woman. I was a Hillary supporter, I even wrote her encouraging letters when she was going through crises in the White House. Like other Democrats, I kept making excuses for the Clintons' excesses. However, even before Obama decided to run, I was hoping the Democrats would have an alternative candidate to Hillary because I do not think she is the best person to be president--and I know many Democrats who share that feeling. Having observed her throughout this primary season, I have been disgusted by her. Like Icarus and Narcissus, Hillary will be the cause of her own destruction.

  • Posted By: mlkj @ 03/14/2008 11:24:50 AM

    Comment: Ms. Quindlen's article clearly plays to the "victimization" of what she must characterize as the clear but subtle bias every woman seeking advancement must has to endure. Why not try this approach to explain why some voters might not want to see her in the Oval Office. Americans have come to see that Bush has resorted to the kind of "back room" decision-making that we have all come to dislike, if not despise outright. Had we known that about him when he was running, it is very possible he would not have been elected at all. Fast forward to Clinton's candidacy. THIS IS HOW SHE DOES BUSINESS. Her last clearly public leadership effort was Unuversal Health Care. If memory serves me right, she so eschewed public participation in the process she was supposed to be heading that the court had to intervene. It did not tell her to stop the development of policy. It merely cited the total unacceptability of her style - working behind closed doors. Given the choice between ending the method of developing policy and ceasing the STYLE which she seemed to prefer developing it, she stopped altogether. There is nothing in her present persona that says she has abandoned that method. All the candidates talk about WHAT they will do to address the issues that are important here. She seems to be the only one who doesnot/will not/cannot talk about HOW to execute the solutions she proposes.
    The article is clearly biased. It panders to the fears that if Hilary Clinton is not elected President, the only reason such an unacceptable outcome could occur is because she is a woman( maybe the author has already penned such an article and left it sitting in a desk drawer). Forget that she is as secretive in her style as they come. Forget the fact that she is clearly as polarizing a personality as the article purports her husband to be. Forget the fact that she carpet-bagged her way into the Senate in the same manner as Joe Kennedy, Barney Frank, et al. These are not the traits voters find undesirable in female candidates. They are traits voters despise in candidates of ANY gender.

  • Posted By: michelina @ 03/14/2008 9:14:50 AM

    Comment: To Sean Muqtada Hannity:

    Since you've never been a "woman", I see where all your expertise would come from. As far as Obama rising above the "race" issue, you should turn your television on CNN, and see how is Church and Pastor make the "issue about race"----he's an absolute disgrace, and out of line with his opinions and sermons,
    I TRULY BELIEVE, he wants a civil war in this country.

    • Posted By: Sean-Muqtada-Hannity @ 03/14/2008 19:48:46

      Comment: You said it yourself, "Church and Pastor" not Barack. If we were to distance ourselves from everyone who says things we do not want to hear, we would all be distant from each other. We know that ALL pastors run their mouths and parishioner should not be held responsible for what pastors say.

      McCain was just endorsed by and anti-Catholic white reverend and there was no storm from the media. Billy Graham (the revered American hero) said so many anti-Semitic things but has been repeatedly invited in the White House and has been treated like a King.

      Let us not kid ourselves here; most of you are not angered by racism, racism is what blacks suffered in this country and in some ways still suffers, what blacks EXPERIENCED in this country and racism IS NOT Jeremiah???s CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED SPEECH (I repudiate and reject some of what he said, but look at the totality of the man???s message, I bet you are not willing to do that)!

      By the way what he said about 911 was out of line in the sense that the country was grieving, but he was talking about a COUNTRY and NOT ABOUT RACE! Not unless America is synonymous with white!

  • Posted By: artheals @ 03/14/2008 7:44:42 AM

    Comment: Bravo Ms. Quindlen. Robin Morgan addressed these same issues in another brilliant article on the Women's Media Center. Sexism is alive and well, it is just more insidious and unconscious because it is so embedded that most people don't recognize it. Senator Clinton is an exemplary woman and human being who brings incredible intelligence, decisiveness, command of the issues, and unequaled experience to her candidacy. In addition she demonstrates amazing courage. tenacity, and compassion in the face of unimaginable adversity. It is time that Americans gave her the respect that she deserves--she has worked tirelessly her entire life to improve the lives of all Americans and she will continue to do that as President.

  • Posted By: kate011 @ 03/14/2008 2:59:46 AM

    Comment: I love this article as I love most of the columns written by Anna Quindlen. She is extremely thoughtful and articulate. It seems odd to me that the hateful Clinton comments made in most of these posts are totally at odds with Obama's promise of hope and inspiration. Although I don't think they realize it their content is a real affirmation of exactly what Anna Quindlen is saying.

  • Posted By: Sean-Muqtada-Hannity @ 03/13/2008 10:47:05 PM

    Comment: The is no question that sexism exists but racism is more powerful and more hurtful than sexism.
    Racism is is eve n more powerful than religion; otherwise we would not have had "God's" children
    treat each other the way white systematic racism treated blacks. The sad thing about all of this
    is that Obama is trying to avoid making racism an issue even though he knows is rampant because
    in a majority white country he cannot win even if he is telling the truth.

    Obama could pile on about how blacks have a raw deal in this country (even though it is true)
    but he is choosing to be above it all. Focusing on racism is an easy way out because it gets
    everyone riled up. His focusing on issues that affect us all speaks to his ability as a leader.
    Obama, unlike Hillary has chosen issues that unite all of us as Americans rather than present
    day hype which can spell doom for us all. He is in the Nelson Mandela leadership
    calibre. Even though Mandela knew that many whites in South Africa still habored racist
    sentiments and mentality, he chose to ignore it and pretend it was not there. Obama
    like Mandela is aware of racism in America, but knows one thing that pointing it out is not
    going to solve it as it has not over the centuries.

    Hillary's problem on the other hand is lack of leadership, vision, and the ability to unite
    people around common issues.

    P.S. Do not think that BLACKS are not confused by Obama lack of emphasis on race, some wish
    they could corner him into making racism the focus of his campaign, but he is choosing not to.

    Bill Clinton got 90% of the African American vote, and McCain is getting 100% of white
    vote in his party.

  • Posted By: paul962 @ 03/13/2008 9:04:33 PM

    Comment: All this from the media that proclaimed for more than a year the Hillary was THE presumed nominee?
    The same media that devoted what 8X or (x the free air time & column inches to he inevitability?
    To this day, the same media that devotes miles of column inches to Hillary who is 2-15 in the race for delegates since the Super Tuesday elections that was to be her nomination day?
    Of course I am being unfairly sexist....
    Denigrating to the every woman candidate.....
    Yep. I am sure that I just don't get it and the every man candidate, whoever that is just implementing these series of events upon the innocent & unsuspecting every woman.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 03/13/2008 7:12:40 PM

    Comment:

    I want a female President too. But we have to be careful in our selection of female candidates. Remember this lesson from history: Geraldine Ferraro's cheating on her taxes KILLED women's political chances at the Presidency until now, 25 years later.

    Oh, yeah, Hillary hasn't released her tax returns yet. Are you old enough to recall what happened to Ferraro's candidacy after she released her tax returns? She got flushed down the toilet, and with her went the dreams of millions of American women. I don't want to give away the next 25 years to Hillary Clinton's mistakes.

    Maybe if I'm lucky, I'll still be alive in 25 years, when Obama's daughter will run for President.

    And maybe if I'm really, really lucky, Obama's daughter will turn out to be a Republican.

  • Posted By: chandler @ 03/13/2008 5:36:56 PM

    Comment: As a woman I was appauled by this article. She asked what is the male equivalent for "calculating"? Ummm..."calculating". It isn't a feminine word. People have been turned off by Clinton's tactics and her tendancy to lie repeatedly. I urge everyone to do a search for what Lord Trimble said to Hillary's comment that she brought peace to Ireland. She has little to take credit for, and lies about other candidates.

    I have been very disappointing at the number of lies that have come from her campaign. She lied to the Jewish Community about who Obama's foreign policy advisors were (instead saying a name that terrifies the Jewish community). She lies about Obama voting for tax decreases for oil companies (he voted to increase taxes for them). The list goes on and on.

  • Posted By: sarafina @ 03/13/2008 3:31:06 PM

    Comment: okay Ms. Quindlen how's this?: Bill Clinton is the most calculating president that we've had in the history of the United States. Stop with the typical feminist victim-playing. It's nauseating even for women. Hillary's a big girl and if she's running for president then she's strong enough to suck it up. "Calculating" isn't the worst she could have been called and it isn't even considered an epithet. For pete's sake (<-excuse the chauvanistic expression) let's grow up!

  • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 03/13/2008 2:14:05 PM

    Comment: I loved the article if only to PO all of you people posting. The hatred most of you have to HIllary is disgusting. I'm happy and proud to be a Hillary supporter! She will get my vote. McCain will get my vote. Obama will not!

  • Posted By: fog80 @ 03/13/2008 12:28:29 PM

    Comment: what a stupid article. I guess thats what we get when hillary wins a state or two.

  • Posted By: adriennej @ 03/13/2008 11:32:18 AM

    Comment: Dear Ms. Quindlen,
    I have been an admirer of your column and books for many years. However, I really disagree with your column today. As an African American woman in my forties, I was one of the children of the dream that Martin Luther King Jr. discussed in his famous speech. I was even present at the event with my mother in a stroller. I don't deny that there is sexisim in this country, but I do take offense to the way that your column dismisses the pervasive racism that permeates this culture. I find it interesting that you included the comment that a woman must be twice as good as a man to be considered half as good. This has been an understood truth in the Black community since slavery. Barack Obama is an African American with an impressive history and standing in the community. Do you truly believe that he has been able to skate his way to the top due to his race and gender? It is no easy feat to become the editor of the Havard Law Review for anyone. I suspect it was even more difficult for African American, who was probably viewed as an affirmative action quata student. I have worked in the non-profit arena for the majority of my life. Most of these agencies and businesses were created and run by White women from Ms. Clinton's generation. These were the agencies that were created in response to feminist call for female leadership. This could have been a chance for women to bring another type of leadership style to the forefront . Unfortunately, these female leaders simply adopted the same style of leadership that men have been using for centuries including the creation of a old women network that helped to lock out many people including women of color. This attitude is exmplified by the statements for Geraldine Ferrera and Senator Clinton's tepid response.
    I support Senator Obama for many reasons. I believe that the sign of a true leader is the vision that he or she creates. I believe in a vision that plays to our ideals and strengths, not our fears and prejudices. It is noted that a people without a vision shall perish. I believe in his ability to unite political factions that have been at war for too long and to the detriment of the American people as a whole. I believe that gain an accurate glimpse of a person, look to those people, who surround him or her. In particular, I believe that Michelle Obama is an impeccable person and a true representation of the feminism that I embrace. I believe that you can run a campaign that presents your strengths and talents without denouncing your opponents. I believe in the dreams spoken by the leaders of my childhood: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Senator Robert Kennedy, and Barbara Jordan. I believe in Senator Obama's presidential run for many reasons; the least of these is his gender.

  • Posted By: MissyE @ 03/13/2008 10:54:04 AM

    Comment: Ma'am I'm trying to get to the crux of your piece but in the beginning you do what so many others many African Americans and others with compassion don't understand. You use your right to be offensive to be offensive. You don't think and you don't care. Then you want to pretend that's not what it is. How does being relegated to the lowest job on the economic scale "Shoe shine boy" compare to a woman who irons? Women and men have been ironing for themselves for years. It was a domestic chore, not a half step past slavery but you wanted to write it, to say it because you could. It's just like those same people who have to say words like "uncle Tom" or 'lynch' because it's not the n-word but it's hurtful and has history in the black context in an offensive way. It's not about political correctness. It's always about people like you having your right to say offensive things. More men sell me clothes and makeup, teaching cooking, and iron clothes than ever. And thank goodness bevause at least they don't offend me the whole time with their mouths. Hillary never ironed anyone's shirts, and there's no shame in ironing. It no wonder why the television reeks of women like you screaming their liberation who only know salad and work outside the home, won't stop talking about themselves in a neurotic frenzy, or have to prove they can do home improvements. You've fooled yourself into thinking that liberated meant graceless, and aggressive. Enough

  • Posted By: Templegee @ 03/13/2008 10:31:16 AM

    Comment: Anna, your article was excellent, however, although I have been saying the same for months, I'm beginning to belive that this primary has reached the point that has been obvious since February 5th. Surprise, surprise, a white women and a black man running against each other for the Democratic nomination,didn't cross anyones mind that it would bring out the underlying sexism and racism that has permeated this country, since its creation. Men against women, black against white,young against old, culture against culture, rich against poor, and even Mother against Daughter. A divide among Liberal, moderate and conservative factions in the Democractic party may very well do them in, in the general election, unless the elder statesmen and women step in NOW and encourage the candidates, with whatever it takes, to stop the dividing food fight and get to the main course.....beating McCain.

  • Posted By: bethb @ 03/13/2008 10:02:51 AM

    Comment: Anna, Would be very interested to see what your take is on Geraldine Ferrarra's comments. I, personally did not take it as a racial slur, more as a statement of fact. This was an opportunity for "Mr. CHANGE Obama" to use it in a positive way, and yet he and his team reacted the very same way as a "Washington insider" . Mr. Calm did exactly what it took to keep the waters muddied. CHANGE??? HAAAA!! Same old -same old!!

    • Posted By: MissyE @ 03/13/2008 10:57:04

      Comment: Should Obama have to answer to Ferraro or anyone else who fingers him on race? Should people start asking Hilary questions about being a woman? Is this an issue here in this campaign season. If Ms. Ferraro is stating a fact well ok. The Senators responded and Ferraro responded as well.

  • Posted By: bethb @ 03/13/2008 9:51:20 AM

    Comment: Anna, I would be very interested to know what you think of the "to-do: about Geraldine Ferrarra's comment. I, personally believe that it was not a racial slur, and that Obama reacted just like a "Washington insider". He had the opportunity to make it something good, yet chose to make it sound like a slur! New Politics?? Change?? Same old--same old!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: brandon1 @ 03/13/2008 6:29:16 AM

    Comment: This may come as a surprise to you Quindlen, but most men today can iron a shirt a lot better than you women. That is if you even know what an iron is , in this day and age of , wash and wear. The Clintons have wanted it both ways since their college days. So has Obama. Hill tells us she's tough and can handle an emergency when the phone rings at 3 a.m.... Then cries at the first crisis in her campaign. Obama can't remember if he's black or white, or both... In the days this country was stolen from the Native Americans, a child born of one Indan Parent , and someone of another race was called a Half -Breed. This i what Obama is, but take my advice and don't refer to him in this term... There is an age old riddle that goes along this premise. Is a Zebra Black with White stripes, or White with Black Stripes.. I don't dare say what I think, because in doing so, I'll be branded a racist. If I said I was for the Clintons, I would be accused of the same thing. If I say I'm against Hillary, I'm a male Chauvinist... You know, I went to bed one night, and found out in the morning, that to tell my daughter that I didn't want her to marry a Black, made me a racist. A friend who is Black ( no I'm not saying that most of my friends are Black , 'cause they're not ) was startled by the same realization. He said to me, " We've been friends a long time, but do you believe I'm a racist when I tell you I don't want her marrying a White ? But there we were, and we never saw it coming.. REmember , during WWll ? The day after Pearl Harbor the guys went to the draft board and stood in line... A Sergeant came down and stopped at each one and said, " Army , Navy , Marines, and that's where you went. It was this way for a long time, till we got organized. What's next ? The same at City Hall when you go for your Marriage Licence ? Some buerocrat will be there to tell all the young men in line, Black, White, Black , White ? Just because we don't subscribe to certain aspects in our culture doesn't mean we are Racists. I would never vote for Clinton, or Obama. Does the one choice make me a male chauvinist, and the other a Racist ? Let's forget all this bunk, and start looking up the candidates records , so we can make intelligent choices in November. Forget color, and vote for the most qualified..

  • Posted By: slawley1 @ 03/13/2008 4:40:37 AM

    Comment: I am not a particularly loyal Democratic voter, though I am more interested in the current apparent Democratic platform of change this year. For me, gender has nothing to do with my calculations. Race has nothing to do with my calculations. I have the discernment, indeed the intelligence to consider issues and, I believe, character. I'm a patriotic American and consider my vote as an important part of our democracy. I think about what I choose. Hillary Clinton is not only a good candidate, but she is a fighter. She's been fighting for Democratic causes all her life. However, she lost me years ago when she railed against the "right wing conspiracy" against her husband. That was not a policy stand. That was a reaction. It may have been a true statement of the situation then, but where is the benefit in it? Barack Obama is also a good candidate. He's thoughtful, eloquent, and moving. He has consistently and patiently staked out a position of change from what is a woeful state of affairs in the American body politic. I say let's choose that. I believe that I'm able to evaluate the credentials of the candidates on valid criteria. Nobody thinks that race or gener are valid criteria. Do they? Isn't it demeaning to those of us to believe that we might use such criteris? Should I be insulted? I don't know. But you know, it doesn't matter. I'm still going to approach my choice with whatever faculties God gave me and do the best I can.

  • Posted By: mendoza dajoo @ 03/13/2008 4:14:51 AM

    Comment: the "Iron My shirt guy" was from a radio show called Toucher and Rich from WBCN in boston. they wanted a reaction, they got one. to make a political argument around it is weak and a reach

    • Posted By: hollywoodmikee @ 03/15/2008 03:51:00

      Comment: The clinton's had that little show put on purpose. She even said can you turn the lights up higher because this was a BS planned event for her to use her prepared answer to get the gender card in play. Wake up you Lewinski presidental knee pad wearer.

  • Posted By: mendoza dajoo @ 03/13/2008 4:13:07 AM

    Comment: It's summed up in the word "calculating," which is often used to describe the senator in as witchy a way possible.


    well...how can you see it any other way? she voted for the Iraq war as a career decision, what she thought she needed to do for the general. It is laughable to call her anything but calculating.

  • Posted By: lynninTex @ 03/12/2008 11:00:55 PM

    Comment: I must say it is wonderful to see the great array of comments! Thank God for living in America and for democracy! Have your opinions and own them and be sure to VOTE! It is so refreshing to see how this process has gotten us all excited and interested in making a choice and taking ownership for the future leader of our country! Look at Russia and how they were were all forced to select the one that had already been chosen by Putin as his puppet! Have your disagreements and arguments over who you think is better or worse and rejoice in democracy! My hope is one of these democrats will win, so let's all see it through to the end and get out and VOTE! Let your voices be heard! It really counts!

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 03/13/2008 14:17:31

      Comment: Probably the best comment so far!

  • Posted By: MChieco @ 03/12/2008 10:24:26 PM

    Comment: Its difficult to be critical of Obama's record , because he doesnt have one.

  • Posted By: CalexanderJ @ 03/12/2008 8:46:13 PM

    Comment: Well written and informative article, I agree that sexism still exists in our society (as does racism) although we are making progess. My only objection is I believe that you slightly twisted Obama's statement 'Hillary attacks me "when she's feeling down"', knowing the full context of that interview it seems pretty clear that Obama was saying that Hillary starts doing attack ads, the negative campaigning, when she falls behind in the polls (which is true and in no way a sexist remark), and not when she's feeling sad or PMS-ing, which is what you seem to be implying he meant, which of course would be a sexist remark.

  • Posted By: Corina @ 03/12/2008 6:27:37 PM

    Comment: Hillary has done a great job of raising a wonderful daughter, considering what she has been through. No one asks to be put in situations beyond their control. Hillary is running to be a President based on her experiences. The Media has covered the fact she always wears pant-suits, to her laughter. Who cares! I have not heard anything like this for Sen. Obama, other than the fact , they claim he has a Rock-star appeal. It's unfortunate, to hear people put her down, telling her she whines all the time. That in it self is sexist, because when Sen. Obama complains, it's called an issue. What has Hillary done so wrong to have many women hate her. All her life she has devoted her time to the poor people of America. She was branded a FIGHTER for a reason, and as a Hispanic American, I'm so proud of her. May God Bless Her, because lately she's been comming under attack not just by the Media, but by some women.

    • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 03/13/2008 14:22:57

      Comment: I agree with you. Who cares what the rest of these clowns think. They are bitter and are looking for a scapegoat, the Clintons are it for now. It was Bill, then Bush, now Hillary is the source of all their problems. So let the complain. Keep your values and vote for whomever you chose, don't let these clowns try to tell you what you should think and feel

      • Posted By: Ind Voter @ 03/13/2008 23:14:23

        Comment: Tell it to Hillary, who's encouraging votes for McCain.

    • Posted By: MissyE @ 03/13/2008 11:09:13

      Comment: You are wrong and buying into the concept of Hillary. Hillary Clinton does fight... for herself. She never cared for anyone but herself. she never cared about the legacy of her husband, she doesn't care about the poor, and she doesn't care about you. And she won't be the Saviors of the Latino community. You can yell it from the treetops but I'm sorry but it's not true. If you want to think like Hillary go on and vote for her... see where that gets you. Too bad

    • Posted By: brandon1 @ 03/13/2008 06:39:52

      Comment: Corina,,, What makes you think that Hillary was around to see this kid raised ? She's been running for President ever since she was in college and her and Bill have figured on her extending his term by getting her elected , long before he was .. She nad nanny after nanny and I''d be williing to be, even as a man with 6 kids, and 8 grandchildren, that I have changed many more diapers, and fed many more kids, and minded them more that she ever has tended to Chelsea..... If I were Chelsea, given Hillarys backing of Abortion, I 'd be wondering if I was born only as a Political tool to get Mommy and Daddy into the White House... I put nothing past these two connivers. Soory Corina, there are none so blind as those who will not see, and I'm afraid you're one of them.

    • Posted By: Ind Voter @ 03/12/2008 21:47:00

      Comment: Poor Corina fell for it. This Hispanic American has not. Apparently, spending your life from 1977-93 at the Rose Law Firm, the largest in all of Arkansas, representing corporate clients in the areas of patent infringement and IP law (not exactly pro bono work) and serving on the board of Wal-Mart qualifies as devoting one's life to the impoverished.

      What is it exactly that Hillary's done for Hispanics? Obama marched with immigrants in the streets when it was politically unpopular to do so. He supported the DREAM Act to help kids with college. He supported driver's licenses for those who desperately need jobs to improve their lives, while Hillary scapegoated "aliens" as the root of all this country's problems. He registered people to vote and sought to empower them to improve their community and solve its problems. Obama knows firsthand what it means to struggle because of one's ethnicity and to work twice as hard to avoid being stereotyped.

      Perhaps the reason most of the electorate is displeased with Hillary is because it has compared her record and her changing-with-the-political-winds positions on many issues and found her lacking an ethical anchor. Riding elephants in 80 countries with your daughter and Sinbad and Sheryl Crow is not foreign-policy experience. Her claims to have brought peace to Northern Ireland are being discredited. Moreover, her poor judgment caused her to vote to send my Hispanic brothers and sisters to die in Iraq. Was that blood worth spilling? If so, wouldn't you think she might bother to read the NIE report to have the most current information and assure herself of the correctness of her vote?

      Think she's pro-woman? I for one will never forget how she insulted all stay-at-home mothers, like my own, when she disdainfully said that she would never stay home and bake cookies and have tea parties.

      The truth of the matter is, her political aspirations are attached to her husband's familiar name (notice the Rodham is long gone), she claims her husband's accomplishments as her own, and tells people in each state what they want to hear (examples: NAFTA is good in TX but bad in Ohio, border wall is good in NY but bad in TX, English-only is bad in TX but ok for multiple other states . . . see a pattern emerging?). Watch the stump speeches or better yet, read the transcripts. You'll find that they change markedly each time to suit her current audience and platform. Go the Library of Congress website and study her Senate record (see for yourself how she was unable to get a single co-sponsor for her children's health care bill).

      Perhaps then it will not be such a mystery why she lacks the support of so many in the American electorate.

      p.s. You might be interested to know that Hillary fired her highest-ranking Hispanic female adviser (Patti Solis Doyle) and replaced her with Maggie Williams.

    • Posted By: ricki @ 03/12/2008 21:41:09

      Comment: The poor people of America? Please. Hispanics have more rights than anyone. They don't have to learn english, they get priority at public schools, the welfare office, and the fruit companies. And it's getting harder to find a decent job that doesn't require spanish, because you don't have to speak english (that's because of Bill, so Hillary will never change that)! And they are voting for Hillary because she wants to keep it that way.. Welcome to Lil' Mexico!

      • Posted By: Zombiehero @ 03/13/2008 14:26:10

        Comment: Viva Mexico! Stop your complaining

      • Posted By: breal @ 03/12/2008 21:48:21

        Comment: THAT'S WHAT IT SHOULD BE CALL!!!!

  • Posted By: Cathryn @ 03/12/2008 5:34:12 PM

    Comment: The writer, apparently, wasn't black, living in Virginia in the 60's where it was illegal to marry a white; apparently wasn't a white woman with a mulatto child who was asked by a older white woman to see the baby at a bus stop in 1968 in Washington DC, saw the child and said, "what a pity" and turned on her heel in disgust; apparently has not looked for honesty in a candidate, rather than gutter-like behavior. Clinton has brought all of this bias upon herself by tearing up when asked "how do you do it", by whining about always being asked the first question in debates (not true, by the way), by not reigning in her husband (who shouldn't be ANYONE's husband after his actions) who set the racial tones of her campaign (so you think she's strong enough to run the country? I don't!) ... want more?

    She is her own worst enemy and is reflecting that into the public's eyes. Hillary is for Hillary, not the United States of America, and she's just lucky to be a woman, or she wouldn't be in the race for nomination.

    • Posted By: Cathryn @ 03/12/2008 17:46:19

      Comment: and by the way, I'm 60, white, female and DID marry a black man in the 60's but had to go to another state to do it. My oldest son married a white woman; he established a business bank account; that bank (Bank of America) would let his wife cash checks but would not let him cash checks that were made out to HIS business! -- this was 10 years ago. Racial prejudice lives on. I have worked in jobs typically held by men and have earned wages equal to my male peers. I have been a network engineer and steel product manager, to give you some idea of the fields I've been in during my working life. I've also waitressed and been a switchboard operator. I really feel one should not complain; one should excel -- you'll get your justice that way, but not by whining.

  • Posted By: loralei @ 03/12/2008 4:58:10 PM

    Comment: This analysis has its strong points: there is still a double standard for women, especially in the media. But the birthright of the male candidate is not exactly the same for minorities. Historically, minority men are feminized by their lack of "masculine" power -- they are never 'man enough' because they are kept down by 'the man', the real man, the white man. This leads many to indulge in hypermasculinity to prove something. Think about how black men are regarded as more "stylish" -- code for being too into fashion. Think about the swagger of rap artists who spout misogynist rhetoric about women. Think about the dual suggestion that Obama supporters are either effete latte drinkers or simply "the black vote". My point is that it is not so easy for black men to deal with gender roles as this article suggests. Obama has his own line to tread over being "too black", "not black enough", hypermasculine, or overly feminine.

  • Posted By: Kay Kay @ 03/12/2008 4:14:52 PM

    Comment: The speed with which Clinton supporters are willing to blame sexism while declaring racism somehow over, is disenchanting at best. I was a Hillary supporter. But I'm not anymore... not because she's a woman, but because I think her campaign has been handled poorly. They have cried foul, while happily committing them without apology, she has engaged in the kind of rhetoric (Obama for VP!?) that you have to see through unless you are willfully kidding yourself. Wolfson with his "maybe Obama will be ready by September" reminds me of the kind of pandering male bosses used to make to their female charges when they were passed over for promotions..."hang in there, honey, maybe you'll be ready next year". I'm informed about the issues and have followed the campaigns closely. Mine is not a decision based on the superficiality of race or gender, but on critical consideration of the options in all of there complexity. You do Hillary a great disservice by framing her this way.

  • Posted By: Kay Kay @ 03/12/2008 4:14:47 PM

    Comment: The speed with which Clinton supporters are willing to blame sexism while declaring racism somehow over, is disenchanting at best. I was a Hillary supporter. But I'm not anymore... not because she's a woman, but because I think her campaign has been handled poorly. They have cried foul, while happily committing them without apology, she has engaged in the kind of rhetoric (Obama for VP!?) that you have to see through unless you are willfully kidding yourself. Wolfson with his "maybe Obama will be ready by September" reminds me of the kind of pandering male bosses used to make to their female charges when they were passed over for promotions..."hang in there, honey, maybe you'll be ready next year". I'm informed about the issues and have followed the campaigns closely. Mine is not a decision based on the superficiality of race or gender, but on critical consideration of the options in all of there complexity. You do Hillary a great disservice by framing her this way.

  • Posted By: Kay Kay @ 03/12/2008 4:14:45 PM

    Comment: The speed with which Clinton supporters are willing to blame sexism while declaring racism somehow over, is disenchanting at best. I was a Hillary supporter. But I'm not anymore... not because she's a woman, but because I think her campaign has been handled poorly. They have cried foul, while happily committing them without apology, she has engaged in the kind of rhetoric (Obama for VP!?) that you have to see through unless you are willfully kidding yourself. Wolfson with his "maybe Obama will be ready by September" reminds me of the kind of pandering male bosses used to make to their female charges when they were passed over for promotions..."hang in there, honey, maybe you'll be ready next year". I'm informed about the issues and have followed the campaigns closely. Mine is not a decision based on the superficiality of race or gender, but on critical consideration of the options in all of there complexity. You do Hillary a great disservice by framing her this way.

  • Posted By: Hope1906 @ 03/12/2008 3:59:54 PM

    Comment: ironically, Anna, the hypothetical you posed to your boss--would anyone every suggest to a man who is in first place that he take second place--is exactly what Hillary tried to do to Obama. I am a woman and a baby boomer, and I'd like to see a woman president one day--but not Hillary Clinton. It is sexist to assume that all women should identify with Hillary and vote for her. Hillary has used victimhood throughout this primary season--and set women back fifty years. It makes me sad when women like you--thinking women--take leave of your senses and fall in line for Hillary. It is SO 1970's, elite collegesque. I remember it well. Hillary, in general is stuck in the Sixties and Seventies--she and Bill remind me of Rip Van Winkle.

  • Posted By: j1ggy @ 03/12/2008 3:37:28 PM

    Comment: You have to tip your hat to the Obama campaign on their strategy to position Obama against Clinton. The race card is very motivating and their use of it to strength the perception of Obama by decrying bias by spinning comments by William Clinton and now Geraldine Ferraro promotes ethnic support by the African-American population and at the same time race neutrality by all other ethnic groups. You just got to give props to the political and marketing strategist of the Obama campaign.

  • Posted By: Saltydog_0 @ 03/12/2008 3:35:20 PM

    Comment: Anna, I'm sorry to see you're still stuck in the 70's. This piece says little about today's political landscape but a great deal about the lens through wich you view it. You repeatedly state opinion as fact, implying that those with a differing viewpoint are laughably ignorant at best and bitterly chauvinistic at worst. For instance, you say that "you just can't" imagine Obama making the statement that McCain attacks "when he's feeling down". Well actually, Anna, I can. Especially when you consider that Obama's statement wasn't referencing Hillary's emotional state so much as her position in their political contest. I would suggest that the next time you feel an urge to take a statement out of context in order to argue an opinion that is difficult to find evidence to support, that instead, you indulge in a moment of introspection and ask yourself if your need to have reality coincide with your own bias or prejudice is so great as to compromise your journalistic integrity.

    Another example: You state that there is a double standard for women because they are expected to have "Exemplary husband, perfect kids, no negatives". Do you really think men aren't required to meet the same criteria? Really?! I would suggest you have a conversation with Rudy Giuliani. His candidacy was essentiall sunk due to divorce, contrary offspring and an unseemly and unjustifiable sense of entitlement.

    You say Hillary is alone in being judged as "calculating". Again, I ask you if this is truth or simply your desire to buoy your belief in a chauvinist cabal, determined to keep women in the kitchens where they belong. I would suggest that the media incessantly drawing attention to Mitt Romney's or John McCains flip-flopping is just another way of saying they are calculating or scheming or conniving or. . .pick your synonym.

    The fact is, people like or dislike Hillary for their own personal reasons. Some judge her based on personality, some on issues, and yes some on gender. As she herself has said, she is a "Rorschach inkblot". What people see in her says far more about the subject than the object. Anna, I find it sad that you see only chauvinism and double standards. We, as a society, are well on our way towards an age where race and gender are a no longer a source of division. It would be a shame if you were left behind.

  • Posted By: ndolan622 @ 03/12/2008 2:05:00 PM

    Comment: I, as a woman in my 50's would LOVE to see a woman President - just NOT Hillary Clinton...I do not like her underhanded, deceitful behavior. I am so turned off by it! Nor do I, as a Democrat, like the fact that she, in effect, endorsed McCain over Obama, her fellow Democrat! That is just SINFUL... no Democrat should EVER cross THAT line!

    All that aside, I looked at both candidates, watched how they handled their campaigns, and researched their backgrounds and stands on the issues...my firm belief in Obama's stands has earned him my vote!

  • Posted By: brownsca @ 03/12/2008 1:55:20 PM

    Comment: I would have never thought that 'calculating' is gender-loaded. I often say to my wife: Clinton is a 'calculating bag of tactics' and Obama is an 'empty bag that people are filling with hope' (I prefer the later, but that is besides the point). I'm I not being gender-neutral in my analysis?

  • Posted By: brownsca @ 03/12/2008 1:53:10 PM

    Comment: I've used the word 'calculating' to describe Clinton and I can honestly say that it was not intended to be gender-loaded. I often say to my wife that she is a 'calculating bag of tactics' and he is an 'empty bag that people are filling with hope'. Is that gender-biased?

  • Posted By: brownsca @ 03/12/2008 1:52:39 PM

    Comment: I've used the word 'calculating' to describe Clinton and I can honestly say that it was not intended to be gender-loaded. I often say to my wife that she is a 'calculating bag of tactics' and he is an 'empty bag that people are filling with hope'. Is that gender-biased?

  • Posted By: jcc002 @ 03/12/2008 1:33:16 PM

    Comment: Are you ignoring the sleazy innuendo Hillary trades in or are you condoning it?
    Do you think her repeated sidestepping of questions is noble?
    Perhaps her insistence that a primary where she ran against "uncommitted" in Michigan be counted -is the math you seek. You're thinking gives rise to the growing chorus of women who voice the opinion that her math doesn't add up, especially when you consider the low standards she sets for herself, her campaign, her staff. Your math of hypocrisy is the same as hers. Good work.

  • Posted By: Factcheck2 @ 03/12/2008 1:31:20 PM

    Comment: Anna, you're wrong about the right wing not being involved in these Democractic primaries. Karl Rove and the G.O.P. have been promoting the Obama candidacy since they rigged his U.S. Senate election in 2004. They made his G.O.P. challenger drop out, then replaced him with an unknown from Maryland, ensuring a landslide victory. That's how this Obama "mania" began. (I've posted an article about this at thecityedition.com.) As for "nuance", The Rove team was most likely behind that professionally made video called Obama Girl, along with plenty of attack clips with false claims about Clinton that were seen by millions of Starbucks-drinking, newspaper-avoiding twenty-somethings who can't distinguish a presidential race from a seaon of the Next American Idol. As for President Bill Clinton being the "one of the most polarizing political figures in modern American history", this is straight out of the Karl Rove stylebook. It was extremist conservatives that pushed the line, just as they drone on now about Hillary Clinton's "high negatives". Like "weapons of mass destruction", this terminology gets branded on the American conscience by being repeated over and over. It has nothing to do with the truth. In the olden days, we called it propaganda. That a writer of your stature doesn't have the license to make a simple point about the election without first preceding it with four paragraphs of Clinton-bashing says more about the double-standard than anything said in the article. In the end, you only further the interests of those forces who are bent on depriving women of equal rights and this country of a leader it badly needs.

  • Posted By: vindido @ 03/12/2008 1:10:57 PM

    Comment: Hey Anna,go fix my dinner you blabbering old b..ch!

  • Posted By: hexagon_sun @ 03/12/2008 9:24:34 AM

    Comment: Clinton is not the one dividing the party, you are! You choose to hate eachother because of which Democratic candidate you support, and that is ridiculous. I respect Hillary and Obama both, they are good people. Hell, when I vote, I'm going to flip a coin!

  • Posted By: hexagon_sun @ 03/12/2008 9:18:31 AM

    Comment: This fighting is so pointless. Both candidates are Democratic, and they have mostly the same plans and views. It just doesn't look like it to you. But remember that you are a DEMOCRAT! That doesn't mean you belong to Hillary, or I belong to Obama, we belong to the Democratic Party! And this "Iron my shirt!" buisness is coming from idiots who don't understand that. I am not sympathetic to them or the feminists who defend Hillary, because you are both being irrational. I actually laughed when I read "Iron my shirt." Don't be so uptight! Vote Democrat, and keep that Bush clone McCain out of office!

  • Posted By: use your head @ 03/12/2008 6:31:18 AM

    Comment: hillary is not like because more that half the country don't trust the clintons. Ruth Ann Minner now their is a honest politican and hard working women who would be a worthy president. But hillary is what we think she is hungry for power and untrustworthy

  • Posted By: chhabili @ 03/12/2008 6:00:29 AM

    Comment: Anna, I love you dearly and really miss you at the NYTimes. But on this, I will completely disagree with you. Would Hillary with no experience as an elected official be a NY state senator, without having been a resident of NY, were it not for her husband, a popular but blemished former president? She has ridden on his coattails. Such is not the case with a black man named Obama. He got here on this own merit. As a woman. I see the Clinton ruse as a dynastic affront and an entitlement bid that I will not vote for in the general. She is a divisive force now and she needs to have the grace to exit before she crashes and burns the party, which she is quite cacpable of doing unless some super delegates stop her in her destructive track.

    • Posted By: Illinois Voter @ 03/12/2008 15:19:27

      Comment: Obama won the IL Senator seat due to Rep. Alan Keyes, a Maryland resident, running in IL as opponent. Makes sense, right? A typical Karl Rove tactic. We IL voters had no choice, Obama was it. Now we regret OB is our Senator. IL has Nuclear waste in water, OB has Exelon Nuclear donations, IL has lost 1,600 Maytag jobs, OB has Maytag donations, IL has slum neighborhoods, OB had Rezko's donations & still has Mrs. Rezko's donations.

      • Posted By: michelina @ 03/14/2008 11:10:49

        Comment: To Illinois Voter:

        Thank you for the real truth, this blog is horrendous for it's portrayal of ugliness that's seems inherent in BO's campaign----they research, -----hardly, they just believe what they read on his web-site, that's not research, it's blind loyalty.------- He's earned nothing, he's accomplished nothing as far as "serving the people"------You all better check out his little friends antics (his church and pastor) regarding racism---that's the real racism---unfortunately, their living 100 years ago. I come from an area where people did as they chose, married who they chose, no law stopped that, and whatever the repercussions were, they dealt with it. You people are disheartening and sickening, I don't care who you support.

  • Posted By: kuniskos @ 03/12/2008 4:21:26 AM

    Comment:
    I can only figure that all the race-baiting and pandering on the part of the Clinton people (which is then glibly compared to a reasonable request for Clinton tax returns or the Samantha Power indiscretion) is designed to get out the bigot vote, in the hope that Hillary can somehow overtake Obama in the popular vote, which will in turn allow for a case to be made that she deserves most of the superdelegates, giving her the nomination.

    I guess the Clinton thinking is that they can then make it all up to African Americans, between the time when she defeats Obama and the general election. And all will be right with the world.

    All these revelations, of souls and personalities and innermost desires, have been stunning. On the other hand, Obama, despite seeming a little flustered or weary at times, remains remarkably gracious and decent. I guess there's a part of me that thinks maybe he's acting, but even if he is, "How can we know the dancer from the dance?" seems to sum things up.

    • Posted By: pezled @ 03/12/2008 07:06:21

      Comment: SO.........Democrats have a "BIGOT VOTER" base????? That's what you said!!!!!! I thought all Dems were perfect!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: anthonyhaleytx @ 03/12/2008 2:12:42 AM

    Comment: Reality check time: Last time I checked, Senator Obama is doubleteamed by both the former President and First Lady. (No African American has ever served in either post.) Last time I checked, there are more women serving in the U.S. Senate and House than African Americans. (In fact, since Reconstruction, three African Americans have served in the Senate -one a woman.) Racism is apparent in the common media usage of the word "women" to mean "white women. Give me a break, get real, stop whining, and run the race.

  • Posted By: anthonyhaleytx @ 03/12/2008 2:12:09 AM

    Comment: Reality check time: Last time I checked, Senator Obama is doubleteamed by both the former President and First Lady. (No African American has ever served in either post.) Last time I checked, there are more women serving in the U.S. Senate and House than African Americans. (In fact, since Reconstruction, three African Americans have served in the Senate -one a woman.) Racism is apparent in the common media usage of the word "women" to mean "white women. Give me a break, get real, stop whining, and run the race.

  • Posted By: takwr @ 03/12/2008 1:07:52 AM

    Comment: No because Hillary is a woman makes her the best leader for the country. As a woman it was nice to see another woman in the race. However, Hillary and her husband lies and nasty attack on Obama just to get votes left a bad taste in my mouth and will not be voting for her. So yes, there is a bouble standard towards Hillary, if a man had spread such lies the press would have eaten him alive, but Hillary and her husband hope the country would forgive her and her liar of a husvand due to the her husband being liked by many.To put out such nasty untruth just to win a tough race was uncalled for and this is not a person I want leading the country. If she can lie to the people now she will continue to lie to the people later and in the office. I see she has indeed picked up some thing form her husband, how to lie to the people and think it is o.k. Regardless that she is a woman, more than that she is a liar.

  • Posted By: Albert1690 @ 03/12/2008 1:01:06 AM

    Comment: I was going to spend some time to think of a good comment, but "lynninTex" did a great job at taking the words right out of my mouth. Ms Quindlen, you did an excellent job at honestly and fully describing Hillary Clinton's position, and how any move on her part to try to "comply" with double the amount of required work, she is seen as too "calculating." And back to what "lynninTex" said, it is the fact that Obama has a fresh new slate that allows him to not have all of this "polarizing" history that experience and time unfortunately brings to everyone, including Hillary Clinton, a very deserving presidential candidate.

  • Posted By: lynninTex @ 03/12/2008 12:38:16 AM

    Comment: Feelings about Hillary aside, Anna did an excellent reflection of how women truly have it harder in comparision to men. I wish Hillary had the clean slate and new comer-quality as Obama and not the past history which makes her an easy target. If this were the case, she would be the person of choice as we deserve to have a woman leading our great country.

  • Posted By: JBrink @ 03/12/2008 12:26:16 AM

    Comment: How does "twice as good" relate to Hillary Clinton? I have watched the democratic primaries closely and I am disappointed both in her character and tactics. I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt (its a hard race, women have to show they are tough, etc.) and then I watched the "as far as I know" video. It was pure manipulation--- with the "as far as i know" uttered in that special tone reserved for character assassination by the mean girls at the lunch table in high school . She portrayed every stereotype that women have fought
    against. I don't expect "twice as good" just "good enough. Why should I lower my standards and
    expectations just because she is a woman.

  • Posted By: clubcodale @ 03/11/2008 11:24:23 PM

    Comment: There is a double standard for HIllary. If a man tried to manipulate their way into the nomination and take down the party in the process, there would be tremendous push back. HIllary gets away with it BECAUSE she's a woman. PS: And I'm a woman who thinks this.

  • Posted By: David Gibbons @ 03/11/2008 11:23:20 PM

    Comment: It seems to me that the double standard that is alive and well is the mismatch in ethics between the Obama campaign and the Clinton campaign. An Obama staffer is fired for calling Clinton a monster, but a Cllinton fund-raiser (Ferraro) remains a part of the Clinton campaign after saying that Obama got where he is only because he is black. I hope a future column will address this.

  • Posted By: Driver of wagons @ 03/11/2008 11:16:41 PM

    Comment: The rank and unrepentant racism of GOP Rep. Steve King has presented John McCain with his first test of leadership since securing the Republican nomination. And he's failing miserably.

    Faced with King's vile and imbecilic assertion that "the optics" of a Barack Obama presidency would encourage "the radical Islamists" -- and that al-Qaeda "will be dancing in the streets" if Obama wins -- McCain had a spokesman tell Fox News that McCain "doesn't agree with King's comments," and offer the toothless bromide: "He intends to run a respectful race and keep it about the issues.""Doesn't agree"? That's the strongest response he is willing to offer? Where is the unequivocal repudiatio