women recognized that, at least for tonight, their future was inextricably bound up with Hillary’s, and that, at least for tonight, they needed to send a clear message that misogyny and sexism just won’t work anymore
Yes.
It will be because she loses on her merits as a candidate.
Let's hope so. Although I'm frankly a lot less optimistic than you are that tonight's inspiring and refreshing and generally fantastic repudiation of institutional misogyny will last. It will raise its head again in this campaign. Mark my words.
I'd bet money on seeing an example tomorrow.
That doesn't undermine what happened tonight, though. It was awesome.
And it was worth a good few teaspoons.
Best writeup I have read all day on this. And its by a..gasp..man!
All kidding aside, it was a good dissection of something that shouldn't of meant shit to anyone with two brain cells to rub together.
very well said sir, and right to the point. for once a thinker and not a joker.
Oh man, I'm going to be an emotional mess by the time of this election because these social justice issues are the only thing to really get me crying at the deep anger and passion I feel about them. This post made me cry a bit towards the end with Women who could write, wrote. Women who could speak out to friends, spoke out to friends. And in New Hampshire, women who could vote, voted for Hillary Clinton.
Damn right. I'm not American and I'm not yet 100% sure which of the three candidates I prefer from a policy perspective (they're all pretty damn good options, I think), but it is amazing to sit in a country that's been under female leadership for most of my life and watch the US (Democrats) have the option of voting for a woman or a black man, both of whom are seriously viable candidates. As much as this election should be won on policy, it shouldn't be underestimated just how much it impacts a group of young people who are raised knowing that they truly *can* lead the country and that sex or race is not the barrier it once was. It makes me immensely proud of my country and I would just love for the children and young adults (particularly) of the US to get to feel that.
Re: the Bradley Effect, this graph, which shows Obama's predicted and actual performance falling within the margin of error, tends to suggest that the Bradley Effect was not operative (and I really hope it wasn't!), and that Hils got a bigger share of the question mark (Independents and Undecideds, of whom there were like 40,000 in NH, way more than the numbers separating Hils and Obama).
Aside from the Angry Woman Effect, the Whouley Effect is worth consideration, too.
who wants to bet that absolutely nobody on the screeching heads networks will even broach this subject, let alone come to this conclusion (ie, they are the problem)?
Rachel Maddow told Chris Matthews it was his fault. 
I would love to believe that Clinton's win was due to a massive surge in anti-sexist sentiment among the general public, but... I don't know, that just seems absurdly optimistic. The polls in NH showed her having a substantial lead there for months, a bigger lead than the one she actually ended up with. So how do the results indicate a sharp rise in anti-misogynist sentiment? Everyone seems so giddy about it, and I'm just not seeing it.
The polls in NH showed her having a substantial lead there for months
Not in recent days, they didn't.
Which is why everyone was predicting an Obama win, and why everyone who was looking at the polls favoring Obama as late as this morning were surprised that she won.
Liss,
Sometimes you and your teaspoon are the only reasons I get up in the morning. You make America a better place.
Thank you for that.
how do the results indicate a sharp rise in anti-misogynist sentiment?
57% of the voters who turned out today were women, which was the same percentage as in Iowa.
In Iowa, 30% of women went for Hillary, and 35% for Obama, who beat Hillary w/ women in every age demographic except over 60.
Today, 46% of women went for Hillary, while only 34% of them went for Obama.
And Hillary won in all but two demographic categories; Obama took only the 18-24 and 30-39 age groups. Hillary took 25-29, and everything 40 and over.
That's a big switch.
I've written more posts defending Hillary in the last week than I have in the last year -- and none of them were on the issues; it was all in response to blatantly sexist attacks, a la "Hillary's a big crybaby GIRL and probably has COOTIES!" By the time I read about the "Iron my shirt!" shit late last night, I was seeing red, totally bloody livid.
That's what happened in the interim between Iowa and New Hampshire.
It would beggar belief that the big switch of woman voters from Obama to Hillary had nothing to do with that.
Suzy: (((hug)))
Also notable:
A few hours ago, I said Hillary had probably gotten a few empathy votes...
Jeralyn: "Obama fell in the 'empathy' category and Hillary doubled her numbers there."
Doubled her numbers! Oof!
Right back atcha, Liss. I'm just drunk enough to acknowledge that I fancy myself your dim-witted doppelganger. You set a lofty example.
And I appreciate it. Thank you.
"It would beggar belief that the big switch of woman voters from Obama to Hillary had nothing to do with that."
Or, simply for the sake of a different logic...that they (that being Hillary-supportive female voters) were there all along and recent polls have simply been off the mark.
Maybe not, but a thought.
I’m glad Clinton won. Since Obama won Iowa, I have seen a level of misogyny that one only imagines but does not witness in such open abundance. It would be different it there was an issue to issue fight, but issues never came into comments I was seeing, such as “Hillary needs to be destroyed.” “She needs to go down.” As much as a supporter wants his or her candidate to win, how often is this type of language used in the gloating process. It is normally, “I want Bush to win.” Not, “I want Bush to destroy Kerry, to annihilate his very existence, to piss on him, carve him into pieces then pour bleach all over him.” It is that hatred, that pure misogynistic hatred that comes out when Senator Clinton is succeeding. For weathering that alone, she will get my vote. Now, the woman cannot be human, they say her emotions are manipulated and only manufactured to serve a purpose. That is hardcore misogyny.
I have read the postings here and I'm shocked that no one has mentioned the theory that in Iowa you caucus (public voting) and in New Hampshire you vote in secret, thus being able to hide your racist nature. Most Democrat's that I know are passive aggressive people who say one thing to your face and then the exact opposite behind your back. I don't think this country is ready for a black President, still too much racial tension.
Also, the youth vote and it's predictability had something to do with it. I've been joking about it since Kerry's run and the "rock the vote"
nonsense, I call it "rock the bong" because they might answer pollsters, but they don't vote.
Most Democrat's that I know are passive aggressive people who say one thing to your face and then the exact opposite behind your back. I don't think this country is ready for a black President, still too much racial tension.
There's your Republican talking points right there.
But did all this happen in a few hours? What happened to the polls that showed Obama leading with several percent?
Does anyone know why they were so far off? What kind of polls are they doing in this campaign?
There's your Republican talking points right there.
Complete with incorrect apostrophe usage and a country singer tagging along.
Complete with incorrect apostrophe usage and a country singer tagging along.
And a bad case of transference, too.
I skimmed some disturbing things on Hullabaloo. If I read it correctly, Diebold counts most of the votes in NH.
How about the "Diebold Effect"?
Although however it happened, I love seeing the egg on Tweety's face. 
The misogynist attacks on Hillary remind me of the same sort of attacks in France on Ségolène Royal by the mainstream media.
It was only the media, but also some, usually older, male politicians, often in her own party.
Some on the "left" in France seemed to prefer to lose the election rather than have a woman president.
Of course the men in the old-boys network always land on their feet, like Dominique Strauss-Kahn who finished behind Royal but got named head of the IMF.
This is a nice story, but there is no proof it is true.
Your last paragraph was beautiful! Now I'm the one who's teary eyed.
Thanks.
Tim McGraw--you do know that the real Tim McGraw is a Democrat, right? He's even pro-choice and out-spoken about it. He's supported--A BLACK MAN (Harold Ford Jr.). So, when coming up with a slick moniker, you might want to explore the politics of the person you're impersonating.
I wonder if this will have a measurable impact on her overall perception - I'm curious to see if there will be any significance in her public ratings on places like fittobepres.com which are good for that.
Some will criticize this as misguided identity politics, but they’re wrong. Oh, it’s identity politics — women in New Hampshire and throughout the country recognized that Clinton was being attacked as a woman, and came to her defense. But it’s far from misguided.
Too right, Jeff. Well said.
TM: Most Democrat's [sic] that I know are passive aggressive people who say one thing to your face and then the exact opposite behind your back.
And Republicans are a model of decorum and forthrightness, whose public and private lives are never wildly at odds due to blatant hypocrisy, right?
Some fine upstanding Republican role-models:
http://shakespearessister.blogsp...her-
member.html
http://shakespearessister.blogsp...-
update_03.html
http://shakespearessister.blogsp...lack-
penis.html
http://shakespearessister.blogsp...ing-to-
kid.html
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/sh...do?
diaryId=2932
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/sh....do?
diaryId=874
...and for what it's worth, that's merely the first six examples that sprang to mind, and hardly an exhaustive list of Republican hypocrisy on recent display.
So, which party is full of passive-aggressive phonies?
Spare us your self-serving projection.
I call it "rock the bong" because they might answer pollsters, but they don't vote.
Tim McGraw
Oh that's clever. Gee, I guess that explains why I have so much antipathy to the political process and never vote.
By the way, Mr. Fecke, this is a truly excellent post, one of many you've churned out. I do hope you realize what a huge asset you are on the Shakesville team.
I'm not a Hillary fan but this misogynist nonsense is out of hand. Any woman with brains knows that if it was HER up there, she'd be getting the same treatment, regardless of her own leadership abilities or personal merits. We can see that, and we react negatively against those who perpetuate it.
Even though I disagree with Clinton I found myself rooting for her last night. Your post pretty much sums up the reasons why. The misogyny of the past week alone has just been mind blowing.
Count me in as one of those women who, although I have many issues with her voting record, will vote for her if this sexist crap continues unabated.
Just an observation: a lot of white people think racism doesn't exist in America, but you won't find much of that among black people. A lot of men think sexism doesn't exist in America because they don't experience it, but women aren't stupid and they know what their experiences are. If that brings them to voting for Hillary Clinton, I may have to trust their judgment and vote with them. A thumb in the eye of sexism is a good thing. If I thought Senator Clinton would make a bad president, nothing would make me vote for her, but I think she'd be a perfectly competent president.
" Count me in as one of those women who, although I have many issues with her voting record, will vote for her if this sexist crap continues unabated.
"
Me too. I not exactly a fan of hers, but if the only reason her opponents can up with for her being unsuitable for the job is because she's female, they've pretty much lost my interest.
I, too, got fed up.
And three cheers for Tom Toles, the Washington Post cartoonist who nailed the misogynistic crap this morning.
He's the one who nailed it after the Post ran that ridiculous rumors story, too.
er, Muslim rumor story about Obama.
I really don't think it's the Bradley effect. I've said before--if a man and woman of the same race apply for a job the man will have a better shot at it, it won't be an equal contest. I think sexism is going to be the last prejudice to go.
I'll admit I could be wrong because there's no way to know all the ins and outs. I also assume many men would tell me I'm full of shit based on their experience.
(But I don't think so).
Jeff Fecke, I want them to clone you and cc: me. Why aren't more men like you? You consistently write about women and women's issues, for one thing, which is stunning enough, and you do it from a point of view that makes it clear we're not another species to you. It shouldn't be that rare, but it is. Thank you.
I also think the sexism that's been directed at Hillary Clinton for years is absolute crap, and if this primary victory does something to blunt that, good.
That said, I don't favor her as a candidate at all, and I think I can still be opposed to sexism (to the best of my ability) and still not vote for Clinton in the primaries. I don't doubt for a minute that she is competent, but I have serious qualms about the ends to which she would direct that competence were she to be elected president.
Of course, there's still a long way to go, and all of that is subject to change.
And I agree with Linnaeus about Clinton.
"That said, I don't favor her as a candidate at all, and I think I can still be opposed to sexism (to the best of my ability) and still not vote for Clinton in the primaries. "
Of course that's possible. Just as it's possible to criticize Israel and not be anti-semetic.
The problem is though that most of those who criticize both are laboring under some big prejudices (that they also generally deny). So, it's often hard to separate the genuine criticize from the bigot crowd.
I agree with the feelings of uneasiness with her positions on some things. I have those feelings for each and every one of the dem frontrunners. How do we decide then?
Jeff, thank you. This isn't the first time There have been tears of joy while reading one of yours or Melissa'a posts.
Wow. Thanks for taking the time to write this. It hits the nail on the head, and now I'm all choked up. Good thing I'm not running for office.
The problem is though that most of those who criticize both are laboring under some big prejudices (that they also generally deny). So, it's often hard to separate the genuine criticize from the bigot crowd.
I totally agree. That's why whenever I contemplate Clinton as a candidate, I try to check myself to make sure I'm reacting to her on the issues and not because of who she is.
As for who to choose, well, as a commenter on another blog mentioned, no candidate is ever ideal. It's a complex calculation of who you agree with the most on positions, who you think has the least negatives, who you think is good enough to win and therefore do the things you want to have done, etc. I still haven't settled on anyone, myself.
Well said!!
Even Kos agrees with you, Jeff.
As for me, it's a cool theory, but I'll have to see some more polling data before signing on with it.
I will say, though, that if my state's primary had been held yesterday, I would have at least been tempted to vote for her, just because of all the sexist and misogynistic dung being flung at her. And I started out as a hardcore anybody-but-Hillary voter, so that's saying a lot.
What Lineaus has said, including the inadequacy of all candidates. That Obama is unwilling to impeach bedcause impeachment is for "serious crimes" suggests he believes committing war crimes is not "serious".
???
It doesn't get more serious than that!
He also delivers inspiring speeches that in the ears of some (many?) sound more like speeches full of beautifully crafted platitudes than anything else. A useful skill in a politician, to be sure, but if that's all there is it's not enough, not be a long shot.
At the same time, bringing the Clintons back raises the same dynastic problem voting for Shrub did, brings back the Clinton dynamic with its petty egotistical tackiness as well as its brilliance, and may well maintain in the White House an unhealthy preoccupation with secrecy. (That's something I fear in Hillary, although I can't believe she'd be as obssessive about that as Darth Cheney!)
I think that the comments made by Jeff in this article are very astute in outlining the difficulties that Hillary faces in the upcoming months. The amount of bigotry that is allowed in the American media, and in the public consciousness in general, is maddening. I think that this electoral cycle has really brought to light an ugly truth that must be met head on. www.TheIssue.com is covering the outcome of the New Hampshire primaries, come check out our discussion and add your voice to the debate.
"... the women of New Hampshire decided that they’d had enough of it."
Problem for Hillary is, all these decisive angry women are old, cranky Second Wave feminists and residents of a marginal barely-a-state that really doesn't matter.
The post-feminist younger women do not want to vote for their Mommy.
That's why Hillary has no youtube.com equivalent of ObamaGirl.
Hillary-Boy?
We really don't need to see Jeff in a speedo lip-sync-ing David Bowie's "China Girl" with modified lyrics.
Or, maybe we do?
IMO, KOs isn't agreeing - he's terrified that overt misogyny will help her get nominated/elected. He's basically saying "be misogynists, but be quiet about it."
oh, unchivalrousman sure sounds...scorned, doesn't he?
I was disappointed by Edwards' comment. I've read that he said it based on someone else's characterization, and hadn't seen the footage. And Hillary has been far more loathsome to Edwards, on far more substantive issues, like, oh, starting a pre-emptive war and fear-mongering. But still.
As I've written elsewhere, I'd like to see Hillary Clinton challenged for substantive reasons, versus out of annoying misogyny.
But Jeff, weren't you calling the whole sheebang for Obama less than a week ago? 
Pesky voters!
ginmar,
I just for the first time glossed over your web site.
You seem to be orally fixated.
What's with all the "suck" metaphors.
What's up (or going down?) with that?
Unchivalrousman, STFU already. You're dull.
I think there is another factor at work that nobody has mentioned. Iowa's primary is an open caucus. In a caucus you don't go into a private booth to cast your vote you vote in front of your peers. I think a public vote gives Obama the advantage, people don't want others to think they are racist, so they publicly vote for the African-American candidate. In New Hampshire, you go behind a curtain and vote privately, in New Hampshire this resulted in a win for Clinton. I think the caucus system played another subtle role, Obama supporters are very energetic, in a group that energey can be infectious. Thus if a few people adamantly and excitedly vote for Obama any undecideds nearby may raise their hand and vote for Obama as well.
Hey, asshole, one mention of the word 'suck' proves what a fixated little dickdrip you actually are. What's a matter? Goat girlfriend suddenly skittish?
I love it how one mention of the word 'suck' and dickdrip there is slavering to get all snotty and sexist. Isn't that too too revealing?
Pathetic little goat fucker.
Now, Gin, be fair: we don't know for sure that he fucks goats in particular. It could be sheep, you know.
I don't know...maybe Hillary won in NH just because she had a better ground campaign that got out and targeted young women voters one-on-one in the last couple of days.
Commenting by HaloScan
