Your comment to jmacmanus was outright, over the top nasty. I am a participant in politics enough to know that to call every white person a racist if the person is not an Obama supporter is a Barak Obama campaign talking point. Supporters of both campaigns receive talking points by email on a regular basis.That talking point of “racist” because you are white is counter-productive. Just as labeling me an “Aunt Tom” would be counter-productive.

Calling white persons racist who do not support Obama has by now become expected rhetoric from Obama supporters so it rolls off the backs of most white Clinton supporters. It was not your expected racist comment that I call nasty. The nastiness was your comment about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and the liklihood that jmacmanus opposed his birthday holiday and probably found fault with him . You have zero basis for saying that. For all that you know, she may have been one of the white freedom riders. It is comments like yours that drive a deeper wedge between Obama and Clinton supporters.
If Obama is the nominee, he will need every Clinton supporter in the country to vote for him. He will also NEED every contribution he can get to battle the Republican machine effectvely. At the beginning of this campaign to become the Democratic nominee, there was no question in my mind – whoever the Democratic nominee – I would vote for the person. I am no longer of that thinking. The comments of Obama supporters that Black Americans who do not support him are traitors to the race have swayed me out of my “either one will do thinking.”

In political campaigns, I also vote with my check book. Unlike James Carville, a well known political analyst and a Clinton supporter, who says he will write Obama a check if he is the nominee, I will not write Obama a check. To the extent that I am not a legitimate Black American voter because I do not support Obama, that is the same extent to which I will not write him a legitimate black golden check.
I have wonderful Black friends, male and female. I have wonderful White friends, male and female. Some of us support Hillary, both black and white.. Others of us support Barack. both black and white..

Your paint/ write with a broad brush, lady, with no discernable boundaries. Mind out that you don't get your paint on an area that for you would be the most least desirable area to have your paint. Racists come in all colors!

When you say that you don't trust Obama, are you also saying that you do trust Hillary? What is there about her record, including her various votes on Iraq being motivated purely by political concerns and her baffling Bosnia sniper story, that cause you to trust her?

So I broached that with some women and their response was that the labeling for them in the context of the WOC conversations (and class privileged and gender this or that – there's just a whole bunch I apologize for not knowing off the top of my head yet) and was told that it's empowering to them – and that that's what the breakdown is. In other words, it seems that the use of labels is desired by some and maybe even the re-assigning of stigma, depending on the label.

Anyway – I'm really not sure. But I agree – personally? I don't call myself a feminist even though I know others call me that. I just don't like the label because it's very limiting and not very accurate for me – in part because we just don't have a common broad description anymore.

HOWEVER – here is a great video called This is What a Feminist Looks Like. I really think it does a nice job of explaining/exploring where we are with the concept.

As for the older feminists thing, let me just say that, after being at a conference at MIT in March with 640 women in the media and activist groups, there is absolutely a divide between younger and older feminists. Now – whether that has a lot to do with Clinton's support or not, I have to defer to people who are gathering data.

But I can tell you from my experience since at least January that yes, I have met several women who are 55 or 60 and up who absolutely believe that it is okay to want Clinton just because she is a woman and that it is now or never.

There are also women under that age who feel the same way – but I do not believe their numbers are as large.

Again – this is all based on my experiences – not polling etc.

One thing that bothers me is… how to express… I'm not convinced that “older feminists” is an accurate portrayal of the hardcore support Sen. Clinton has or where it comes from. Maybe it's that the term feminist has been so abused by people of so many political persuasions (though of course it's a past time with some Talk Radio-type conservatives) for so long. It smacks of sidelining real women as “those feminists” again. It's labeling used to dismiss.

I just don't see the 'tribailism' or symbolism involved as being that much different from what happens with other voting phenomena.. Certainly, I recognize the historic symbolism in having the first woman (or first black) president, but the emotional and mental processes involved seem to me quite similar to what happens when people vote for the Party rather than the individual, or when they vote for a candidate who is 'likable ' rather than voting on issues.

When it comes to convincing them to vote a certain way, then, it also seems like the same reasoning is involved as in any oher campaign , Seduction (explain the benefits) mixed with scare tactics (explain the consequences) are the usual methods, and they're quite valid. , unless overdone,

When reaching out turns into pandering, I've never been able to identify clearly. One sounds so humanitarian,and the other so cynical, but where is the boundary,, exactly?

Then, too, statistics can't tell you what exactly it is about Hillary that created such passion. It's hard to believe that just any woman would have filled the bill. Was it Hillary the fighter , or Hillary with the Clinton brand name, perhaps?

If the disillusioned among them insist on voting against their interests, that seems lvery much like the economically challenged who vote for conservatives.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the historic firsts involved are unique in this campaign (first woman, first balck) but what human nature leads people to do is as old as the hills.

It's funny but maybe because I have a legal training, I can COMPLETELY understand how Obama is thinking that it's over, it's his and Clinton is thinking, it's not over until I say so. There really are arguments to be made for both of them – not necessarily good arguments, maybe not even rationale or believable, but again – lawyers throw in everything in their cases to see what sticks.

I'm just saying. I hope it ends SOON. I am so completely plutzed. lol

What's funny is – we haven't really seen anything yet that talks about how we need to wake up and smell the coffee re: not everyone who is eligible to vote does in fact vote. So who is to say WHAT the impact of not voting will be this year. I'm particularly leery of people who say that if McCain beats Obama, it will be Hillary Clinton's fault! I want to know if those same folks will thank her if Obama puts her on the ticket and he wins…

I'd only say that I recognize her comments as unenlightened the way I
was prior to learning about/reading up on just how this election is
seen by black women – that's an incredibly important narrative to
really read, learn about and try to understand. I just get the sense
that she hasn't even tried to do that in a real way – but maybe
that's because I feel so sensitive to it now.

Thanks for engaging.

Jill

Shoot, I did a quick internet search and found a CBS study where 83% of Black people thought the Iraq war was a bad idea back in 2007. Who cares what everyone's reasons are for backing a candidate? If you can find common ground, take it. I'd take Robert Byrd and any Appalachians who want to join the fun.

As to the specific argument, better to have someone point out the spinach in your ideological teeth on the internet than at a dinner party that suddenly becomes awkward.

If I'm full of it, I hope someone lets me know here.

Geez, now you've got me annoyed! Listen, you may not agree with the analysis, you may think I overstated the issue, but I deeply resent the insinuation that I think blacks are some sort of half wild primitive tribe that only sees color. An even cursory reading over of my first and second comments clearly shows that I hold no such position.

As for this “Finally, I'm glad you feel that sexism is dead or dying or whatever.”
That is a laughable misrepresentation of my position, which I specifically went out of my way to deny in my first comment. I believe women have made great strides, and I personally believe that the issue of race is a “hotter” (in the sense of “controversial”) than the one of gender. I do not think it is dead, though I hope it's on its way towards dying.

Now I think that this group has long wanted a more left leaning candidate (or at least one that seems to be so). I think that the same two candidates with reversed messaging would have very different numbers. My bet, and there's no way to test this, is that an Obama who talked about obliterating Iran wouldn't get above 35%. Again, this is pure conjecture, but it would explain why Clinton, Gore, and Kerry's numbers were so high and why Nader was ignored and why Hillary started out ahead in that constituency.

It's an overdone issue by the PC-darling circus set. But what's interesting is that at the start of this campaign (up to Super Tuesday), blacks were wary of him, not seemlingly because he didn't fit the left-Dem cookie-cutter mold of the so-called 1960s-onward “black leadership,” but because they were viewing him the same way other Dems were viewing him, as the underdog with a wariness questioning if he had what it takes to advance, win the nomination, and most important of all, be a serious candidate against whomever-in-the-GOP for the White House itself.

Laying aside the activist idiocy besmirching his campaign, Obama looks sound at this point. And it isn't only black Americans (and all-too-stereotypical activist youth) that have fueled his progress since Super Tuesday.

Of course race is a factor, but I don't know why it's easier to assume that Black people are doing it out of a “need to be tribal.” 18-29 years olds go for Obama 75% to Clinton's 25%. What's their defect? Do you see, at a time when the national media will toss off the likelihood of a race riot if the supers were to select Hillary, as if Black people are somehow less rational, why I might be bothered by your statement? Could ya' try my shoes for one second without getting super defensive? I'm not trying to paint you as some sort of evil, Selma-style dogs and hoses jerk, but your (original, not the backtrack) implication isn't very cool. I don't want you to feel weird, but really.

Two, it's not terribly productive to pit one traditionally progressive group against each other in general. In this case it doesn't even do much to score your dubious points. I can think of a ton of reasons to be proud of women in this election that have nothing with being a, what, better and more open minded voter than the Black constituency. Here's one: no one questioned Hillary's ability to be commander in chief. I, for one, won't be voting for her because I believe she could obliterate Iran. Two, the campaign ultimately failed on operations and messaging, not simply because she's a woman.

Finally, I'm glad you feel that sexism is dead or dying or whatever. When I see a discussion on television on whether sometimes calling a woman a “bitch” is accurate, I have to disagree. When I look at the number of public companies with female CEOs, again, I'm going to disagree.

I don't mean to come off as an angry pedant, but your POV is way out there for me. And outside of the occasional Holly from Cincinnati dust up back in Feb/March, I'm rarely “tense” or “angry” and I certainly don't “start out” that way. Yes, I was totally offended, but I tried to address the comment rather than the commenter, so it would be cool if my comment wasn't dismissed as invalid because I'm supposedly being touchy.