If you all side with Clinton because she's a women, I don't want to hear any shit about how evil men are for siding with someone else because he's a man. That sort of thing goes both ways, and these are arguments neither side should ever have started making.

I'll probably just sit out. I'm not voting for another anti-union, classist, pro war, conservative democrat. I'm sorry, but I don't really care about the issues that differentiate Clinton from the Republicans. I care about the issues on which there are no differences. That's how a coalition works, you can't ignore the issues some of us care about entirely and still expect us to vote for a candidate who's only a lefty on the issues you care about.

I'm sorry if that makes me a 'purity troll', but I doubt you'd vote for a Presidential candidate who hated abortion and gay rights just because they wanted to provide universal college educations and a 3 dollar rise in the minimum wage. If you would, I'd suggest that the later issues are more important to you than the former ones.

I'm not sure how Warner pointing out that Clinton's strongest backers are young, less educated, women is "elitist-ageist analysis." Obviously it could be used for elitist and ageist reasons, but noting its mere existence doesn't quite equal that, does it? This reminds me of the Franke-Ruta vs. Rosenfeld/Yglesias pro- and anti-Clinton argument in TAP a few months ago. On the political positions, what makes Hillary a good liberal electoral choice? I'm open, but I haven't yet been overly convinced.

“…whereas Clinton's strength and personal success are perhaps what older, more established women resent”

As an older, more established woman I can tell you I do not “resent” HRC, but I do feel she is a poor representation of female success because her success is not due to her own merits. She is unquestionably a senator today and a candidate for president based on her husband’s past success. Period. Just as George Bush is president because of his father. They are both members of a new American oligarchy and in no manner represent the ideals of a meritocracy.

Other strong and successful women in the political arena deserve far more respect because they attained their positions the old fashioned way: they earned it. Examples would be Nancy Pelosi or Condoleezza Rice. Or even Elizabeth Dole, who once ran the American Red Cross.

As I said, HRC is part of the American oligarchy. That is why I reject her.

What lucy said... it's not exactly breaking the glass ceiling when one's husband conveniently held one of the panes aside. Maybe the younger generation just hasn't been kicked around enough to realize that it's awfully easy to dismiss women's successes when they're inherited, or maybe they've just so thoroughly internalized parental status-grabbing for their kids' benefit that asking for real independence is foreign to them, but there are certainly good reasons to not view HRC as the model of "'independence' and 'self-sufficiency'" cited here.

Er, I would have *much* more sympathy for someone who sided with Hilary because she's a woman than I would for someone who went with a male candidate because he's a man. Isn't that right and proper?

That said, I'm not sure how pointing out that young women favor Clinton belittles anyones political leanings.

Getting the sentimentality "beaten out of you" is a good thing, regardless of gender. Conservatives live in a world of sentimentality that is neither good nor helpful in times such as ours. Being sentimental, on the other hand, being marked by feeling and/or idealism in the present, is one of many useful emotions. The crop of GOP presidential candidates are yet another harvest of right-wing sentimentalists. Mrs. Clinton seems to prefer to live in the present with most of the rest of us.

As a man, I find it rather shocking that there is no discussion of the possibility that Mr. Clinton would have never attained multiple terms as Governor and President were it not for Mrs. Clinton.

Throughout my life, I have observed the power, influence, and contributions that are inherent to the roles of wife and mother. Why is the concept of synergy so abhorrent to feminists?

I find it rather shocking that there is no discussion of the possibility that Mr. Clinton would have never attained multiple terms as Governor and President were it not for Mrs. Clinton

Nice try, but when supporters are citing HRC's independence and self-sufficiency, the helpmeet role doesn't exactly support that frame. Some feminists will grab any symbolic victory they can; others prefer to hold out for achievement without an asterisk & footnote.

This reasoning always amuses me anyway; in retrospect, I could have taken an acting degree and, instead of suffering through waiting tables & bit parts, married Ben Affleck and expected to be rewarded with an Oscar at some point. After all, I would have theoretically been more qualified to be a professional actor than an untrained piece of beefcake, no matter how charismatic.

Trends are a dime a dozen. For what it's worth, here's an article from the NY Observer claiming to have identified a trend in a direction precisely opposite to that identified by Brooks.

http://www.nyobserver.com/print/55828/full

A Hillary "fan?" If obama and edwards got where they are despite short resumes, it's NOT because they were married to a President.

HRC is where she is because of her last name, not because of her political campaign skill. With Obama and Edwards, the skill is undeniable - that's how they got where they are. So who would you rather nominate?

Get off my lawn!

--David Brooks

What a load of crap. Older women do not resent Hillary's success. The problem is with the candidate herself and not due to success or gender or any other pop psychology jazz.
Explain to me how come so many women of all age groups applaud pelosi and like her alot. or other female politicians.
It is a safe bet that instead of looking for all these theories to explain things that maybe the simple one is the right one.
Younger women do not remember Hillary much from the 90s. The older ones do. And the simple fact is that Hillary has a likability problem.

I think they like her because they think she's their mother.

Drewtock, sure you would. Most men won't. And no, its hypocritical. People are either allowed to vote on the basis of "This person is just like me" or they aren't.

Personally, I think that's a scummy way to pick a candidate. You choose on the issues, and where they stand. I'm pissed as hell that this party will nominate a woman because 58% of the party are women; even though she is the least representative of our values. It would be one thing if they were voting for Nancy Pelosi; but they're voting for the most conservative nominee based on the fact that they share the same genital structures. That's just fucking disgusting, no matter which gender does it.

Drewtock, maybe you missed Tapped accusing everyone who opposes Hillary of doing so because she's a woman... and then ten minutes later declaring that all women should vote for Hillary because she's female.

They completely ignored the fact that Hillary has shown outright hostility to class issues. She hires a union busting PR firm. She brags about how pro-business she is. She won't even begin to end the war. She wants to keep soldiers in Iraq indefinitely to protection Haliburton's corporate interests. That she voted for the bankruptcy bill, regardless how predatory the lending industry has become. I won't vote for her. Not in the primary, and not in the general election. I voted for her in 2000, and I've regretted that vote ever since. That's not because I hate women, that's because I hate conservatives. Even moderate conservatives like Hillary Clinton.

Both older and younger women should recognize that drafting on one's husband's career is not the same breakthrough as building one's career from scratch. Until the mid-1980's, all or virtually all of the women Senators were elected after their husband-senators died. The election of those women did not open the glass ceiling for women; they were neutral events. It was only when non-spouses started winning that the Senate truly opened up.

Further, most of the people I know, male or female, who are irritated with Hillary simply do not like her brazen opportunism. Many forget that she ushered the execrable Dick Morris into the White House in 1995 or so to take over the policy shop from the relatively progressive forces that were trying to accomplish some good. Who do you think pressured the Clinton Surgeon General David Satcher into dropping any mention of needle exchange programs to prevent the spread of AIDS? Classic Morris "triangulation," with not a peep from Hillary. Then, the gall of her to throw out a huge applause line a couple of weeks ago at the Tavis Smiley forum that "if AIDS were the leading cause of death for white women 25-34, there would be an outraged outcry!" Where, prior to that forum and that audience, was Hillary's outraged outcry? More importantly, where were here votes? Where was she on things like needle exchange?

The truth is that more educated people, male and female, are more turned off by Hillary than less educated folks, because they know more about her shifting positions, from the 1990s triangulations to the Iraq war.

"I'm pissed as hell that this party will nominate a woman because 58% of the party are women; even though she is the least representative of our values."

She may not be representative of your values, but I think it would be a mistake to assume that The Party would nominate her because it is has 58% women rather than assuming that they may well nominate her because, on balance, *she is* representative of The Party's values.

"They completely ignored the fact that Hillary has shown outright hostility to class issues."

Exactly. *That* is why she is a top candidate for The Party, not because she is woman or because lots of women tend to vote democrat or whatever.

I'm one of those older, established professional women that said to resent Clinton for her success, and I'm here to say that has nothing to do with why I don't support her. I don't support her because 1) she's too tied to big business (see e.g. Mark Penn, and her donor list), 2) she's too insistent on being a "centrist" and thus betraying Dem positions, 3) her support for the Iraq war, 4) she's too supportive of the imperial presidency, and 5) I question her electability, and getting the GOP out of the WH has to be the priority for Dems. It's got nothing to do with queen bee type notions, and those have no place in this sort of discussion.