http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/03/AR2008030302990.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008030303087

Again, I have to say: At least for me, it’s NOT a woman as a candidate. With any choice of who to vote for, one is always balancing the positives and negatives. I would have no problem voting for a woman. It’s THIS woman, who, simply put, has too many negatives. She might well make a fine Senate party leader… her mind seems to be much more in tune with that.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/prisoner-of-the-gender-war/index.html?ref=opinion

The comments are quite good, e.g., this illustration of the generation gap:

I’m quite disappointed in Steinem’s comments. I read McCain’s book years ago and it was one of the inspirations for me to join the Army and serve (enlisted) for four years. I was very aware of the feminists before me who (among others) made it possible for me to be a medic serving in a front-line unit instead of having to be a WAC like my soldier-sisters in previous generations.

Why must feminism be conflated with an emotional opposition to military service? In my life, feminism has been closely linked to my own military service. And I’m very proud of both.

That’s a far cry from Jesse Jackson’s in-your-face presence, to say nothing of Al Sharpton’s theater of race.

Interestingly enough, in one of the articles I cited, Sharpton basically said “Hey, wasn’t it the whole point of the civil rights struggle that guys like Obama or Harold Ford, Jr., can run whatever campaigns they want?” Sharpton ain’t no dummy. I have to defend my 2004 primary vote for him! (Note: I was voting in a primary after all other candidates but Kerry had withdrawn and though ol’ Rev. Al could use some love.)

If Obama stumbles it will be precisely because of things like his friendship with his pastor, a known admirer of Farrakhan, or his association with Tony Rezko, classic Illinois slumlord and kingmaker. In other words, because he comes to be seen as just another “black politician” or “Chicago politician”.

Yes, this could be. I don’t think anyone wants to hear about Bill Clinton’s post-presidential business deals, i.e., where the $5 Million came from…. McCain, as we’ve also seen, is only clean in a relative sense—his principal staffers are lobbyists, after all. Nearly everyone playing in that world gets kinda dirty, but it takes a special kind of person to truly wallow around in the shit.

And I think that’s the underlying reason for his likely upset. As MPA says, as a second-generation African-American politician he is free not to be a “black politician” in the classic mode. And he’s consciously chosen not to run as one.

If Obama stumbles it will be precisely because of things like his friendship with his pastor, a known admirer of Farrakhan, or his association with Tony Rezko, classic Illinois slumlord and kingmaker. In other words, because he comes to be seen as just another “black politician” or “Chicago politician”.

As MPA points out, in Hilary’s case her troubles are largely self-made. Hilary remains a “feminist candidate” and this, combined with her brash, “my way or the highway” personality puts a lot of folks off. So even without external scandal, she’s got an uphill fight.

http://www.mediamyopic.wordpress.com