Before I begin this diary, I want to add to following caveats:
1. By no means am I stating that BO is the presumptive nominee.
2. This Diary is not about BO's electability (although I have some reservations).
Okay - now that we got that over with, let's get to the point.
Based on the hypothetical that BO is the nominee, I think its highly possible that sexism may have cost his chances at the WH. Yes - you heard me right - sexism.
What we know from many of the exit polls is that there is a startling number of HRC's supporters who state that under no circumstances they will vote for BO.
According to the exit polls, half of Clinton's supporters in Indiana would not vote for Obama in a general election match up with John McCain. A third of Clinton voters said they would pick McCain over Obama, while 17 percent said they would not vote at all. Just 48 percent of Clinton supporters said they would back Obama in November.Obama gets even less support from Clinton backers in North Carolina. There, only 45 percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for Obama over McCain. Thirty-eight percent said they would vote for McCain while 12 percent said they would not vote.
Obama voters appear to be more willing to support Clinton in November. In Indiana, 59 percent of Obama backers said they'd vote for Clinton, and 70 percent of Obama backers in North Carolina said they'd support the New York Democrat.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200 8/05/06/exit-polls-half-of-clintons-supp orters-wont-back-obama/
As we all know, based on BO's current coalition, it would be impossible for him to carry the votes needed to win the presidential nomination without getting most, if not all of HRC's supporters. Therein lies the problem. I believe, amongst other things, that these polls reflect a genuine inconsolable anger at the sexism bestowed onto HRC from the media, party establishment and some BO supporters.
"The on-line community is solidly behind Obama and I've read many posts and comments saying Obama voters would never, ever vote for Hillary so when I first heard these statistics on teevee I was quite surprised. Then I realized what is happening here. The media is fueling their anger. It's that simple. And there are a lot of rank and file Democratic voters who are very upset. I might add that a few bloggers have had their bodies snatched away too. And on CNN Sunday, this notion was validated by Roger Simon:SIMON: ...I find that if you go into Hillary crowds, the anger you find on the part of her supporters, especially women supporters, is directed not against Barack Obama, but against the media.
ZERNIKE: Yes. I mean, I think what people were reacting to this week wasn't so much the media declaring the race over, as it was this kind of "Ding dong the witch is dead" quality about that tone to the comments. And I do think people are angry. And I think when you look at, you know, the percentages of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they won't support Obama, I think Roger is right. They're mad at - they're mad at the media. They're not necessarily mad at Obama.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/05/12 when-pundits-decide#more-29028
I would suffice is to say that its more than the media (or party establishment), but let's go with that. Here's an example:
The Sunday morning talk shows acted almost as though Democratic Party poobahs were saying, 'Oh, all right, let the little woman run.' There was senator Chris Dodd, who made not a ripple in his own presidential campaign, lecturing Clinton that she could run only if she was 'positive.' Clinton would be allowed to run her campaign so long as she conducted herself in a manner consistent with Dodd's diktats. Well thank you Senator Dodd.The consistent theme was that Hillary could run, but she could not 'campaign.' Her voice as a candidate would have to be silenced. She would have to restrict herself to laudatory remarks about herself, not comparisons with or criticisms of her opponent. 'Let the little woman run, so long as she remains positive,' was the apparent order of the day. Mr. Obama had become sacrosanct.
Would pundits and politicians be treating Clinton the same way if she was a man? Not on your life. If Chris Dodd were still in the race? Lecturing him? Telling him he had to limit his campaign speech to the politically correct and inoffensive? Barring him from comparing his campaign to that of his opponent? They would be telling Dodd to 'take off the gloves.' Clearly there are overtones of sexual discrimination in the way Democrats are treating Clinton.
http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-ask s-if-hillary-clinton-r588711.htm
If somehow you have been living under a rock and don't know what I am talking about in the media, please see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
While opponents of HRC cheered as she was and continues to be sliced and diced by the vast majority of the press, in reality they may be doing what the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' wanted - ensuring a Republican WH.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 286 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
