damn her! damn her! for making politically expidient comments that don't reflect what she probably actually thinks! Is there no hell deep enough for this duplicitous woman? Is it not beyond the pale that someone running for president should use hyperbole or metaphor or even overstate the case in order to help herself and her supporters?

aimai

I actually think it's a fair question. Not so much if women show up, but whether they behave at the caucuses - which require you to stand and be counted - the same as men. There are a lot of studies that show men tend to dominate discussions among both genders and women have difficulty speaking up in class rooms (not all women, of course). Whether this translates into gender differences at caucuses, I have no idea, but I do think it's something worth exploring.

That doesn't mean if Clinton loses it will have anything to do with gender differences - if they exist, they may even help her, for all I know women will feel more social pressure to caucus for her. The point is we don't know.

And one of the reasons we don't know is that every time Clinton or a woman suggests that there are gender differences in the political world, they get shot down as being ridiculous. Meanwhile, Bush plays soldier dress up and declare mission accomplished and that has nothing to do with gender code, it's simply good politics.

I've said this elsewhere, but democrats ignore the gender issues at their peril. The Republicans paint even the male Democrats as women. It hurts us all.

Sure, I buy that there are gender barriers all over the place, but if I have to be twice as good and all the while elite twits like HRC are snapping my head back and peeing down my throat, well, then, so does she.

Meanwhile, I don't need someone like that crying wolf until no one wants to hear it anymore, when other women are more in need of attention.

Sorry. I just don't care.

"There are a lot of studies that show men tend to dominate discussions among both genders and women have difficulty speaking up in class rooms (not all women, of course)."

I don't agree. Just because some loud mouth keeps yapping in class doesn't mean I don't still form my own opinions.

"every time Clinton or a woman suggests that there are gender differences in the political world, they get shot down as being ridiculous. Meanwhile, Bush plays soldier dress up and declare mission accomplished and that has nothing to do with gender code, it's simply good politics."

Completly untrue. Very little about Bush's reign has been skewered *more* than his little hop onto the flight deck. And, clearly, the war isn't over.

I would bet dollars to donuts that most caucus attendees are married couples. The few who aren't probably tend to be women. So if some women have difficulty voting against differently from their husbands, then the open vote nature of the caucus will be intimidating, regardless of the raw percentage figures.

This is typical of the fundamental difference between Obama and her majesty HRC. You never hear Obama or his supporters playing the victim card re: race. Not once have we heard whining about how Iowa and N.H. are dominated by whites or other such nonsense. I am a Democrat but if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and McCain is the Republican candidate, I will vote for McCain. Enough is enough.

This is typical of the fundamental difference between Obama and her majesty HRC. You never hear Obama or his supporters playing the victim card re: race. Not once have we heard whining about how Iowa and N.H. are dominated by whites or other such nonsense. I am a Democrat but if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and McCain is the Republican candidate, I will vote for McCain. Enough is enough.

If political participation by women in the Iowa caucuses is even remotely similar to the how things work in the rest of the country, we know that the few who actually get directly involved in a hands on way (with campaigns, party functions, candidate support, etc.), represent the better educated, more affluent or connected groups in their communities. These women, with histories of success under their belts, have confidence and comfort jumping into somthing like a heated caucus debate, regardless of any men involved. On the other hand, Clinton's statement applies more accurately to those most of our new feminists forget exist: marginalized women--women who are less educated, under-or unemployed, living on public assistance, homeless women or the like. Having worked in the domestic violence field with this population for over 15 years, I assure you it's a miracle if they even go vote, much less get involved politics--at least during the time they are moving through that part of their lives. These women have little or no experience feeling powerful, confident, important, smart, capable. They know how to keep quiet, not rock the boat, go unnoticed in a world where it allows them some semblance of protection. They are often in a state of transition, and may very well someday become very actively involved in the political process in their communities, especially if it will help other women who have been through what they have. But for now, the daily demands of their lives take all the energy they have. They are not victims, they are real women with real issues that make circumstances more difficult for them to speak out and participate. Sorry if it makes some uncomfortable, but to all the "insulted feminists" out there: there are millions of women who you have either forgotten, or have had such a protected life you failed to notice. Instead of mocking her, you should be glad that Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, still remembers some of old-fashioned feminism's concern for the plight of women who are disempowered. and I think, quite frankly, she would like to see them vote--for HER. Maybe her statement will get the few of them who are on the edge to come out tonight.

"Instead of mocking her, you should be glad that Hilary Clinton, on the other hand, still remembers some of old-fashioned feminism's concern for the plight of women who are disempowered. and I think, quite frankly, she would like to see them vote--for HER."

Absolutely not. Back when Hillary was wife of Bill, she stooped to plenty in order live in the White House for another 4 years. An oppressed woman would have to be insane or uninformed to vote her.

Fortunately, you can virtually tell what she is just by looking at her.

aimai:

One of my chief reasons for celebrating the eventual Obama nomination is so I can go back to enjoying your posts.

marginalized women--women who are less educated, under-or unemployed, living on public assistance, homeless women or the like

I find it hard to believe that men in similar positions spend hours at the caucuses, while women don't. I think she's trying to prepare people for a disappointing showing-- she's afraid if she comes in at #2 she'll lose that 'inevitable' feeling she's had.

I wish she'd said something like, "it's hard for working families to get there," which would talk about real problems real people face-- and tie in with some of her campaign themes-- without her tired 'women will vote for me because I'm a woman' schtick.

"wish she'd said something like, "it's hard for working families to get there," which would talk about real problems real people face-- and tie in with some of her campaign themes-- without her tired 'women will vote for me because I'm a woman' schtick."

Bravo-- *that* would have made sense. And there are plenty of men who work *nights* and are not even remotely able to just take off from work, with pay or without it.

It goes to show where her head is and isn't at-- and it decidedly isn't possible to reconstruct anything she says as pertaining to traumatized or (truly) marginalized women, or she would know something about marginalized *people.*