she got the support of young women in nh!

see, i've been a little on the fence because backing a person of color is as important to me as backing a woman. also, if you don't support a female candidate's policies, i don't know that you should vote for her on the sole basis of gender. but as this article points out, those boundaries often become fuzzy with female candidates...

hillary, with women in n.h., had a 13 point lead over obama.

Sweet. Why can't I find a decent video of her speech yet?

she did get the support of women--more from women 45 and older. The votes were split between Hillary and Obama in terms of support of "young" women. Nevertheless, well-deserved victory for Hillary!

Congrats to Hilary on the "its my party and I'll cry if I want to" technique. Can't wait to see that on the front steps of the White House.

And I don't mean that to imply I think that women are too emotionally fragile to handle being President. I mean that it was clear that the crying was a campaign tactic used to generate sympathy from female voters. Same with planting those two idiots holding up "Iron My Shirt" signs in the audience. Total bullshit pandering, and I can't believe people fell for it.

Yeah, I'm with Ba. I don't think Hillary has ever lacked support because of her gender, it's because she came across as a cynical animatron. She won N.H. by showing her emotion (supposedly). Women and men suddenly felt that she might be a human (woman) after all, and were willing to support her. Of course, they were duped. It was her most cynical ploy yet.

What does, "she has no masculinity to prove" mean and how is that a reason to vote for someone as Pres? As a black man, masculinity (i.e., masculine sexuality) is going to be Obama's biggest barrier in the general. You can believe that if he was married to a white woman - or even worse, not married at all, with a dating record - he would not have a chance in hell. Both of these candidates have a chance to overcome real barriers in American public life. Steinem is the one being divisive; to suggest that Obama has been is patently ridiculous.

On top of that there's the ridiculous title: Hillary WAS the front runner and probably will be again. There are lots and lots of numbers and words to prove it. Is that title supposed to be true on some deeper, less-actually-true level? It isn't.

I believe the title was written before her NH victory. Perhaps Gloria was predicting the worst after Iowa. Ba is right that if the tears were a munipulative tactic it's a bullshit move. But I don't think it's impossible to believe that they were genuine. Plus, I don't see what the big deal was. Judging from the media without seeing the video, you'd think she was balling. Watching the video, if I wasn't told she was 'teary' I probably wouldn't have noticed.

It definitely could have been genuine. In any case, it was this "womanly" display of emotion that almost certainly won her the primary. Even though it wasn't very dramatic, it was remotely human, which is a departure for her.

drew_s, i agree. i like to think i'm an objective person, but hillary's display of 'humanness' had an impact even on a macho level-headed guy like me:)

I just think its curious to say the least that her "genuine" show of emotion happened to come hours before a primary she was predicted to lose. It reeked of desperation, especially when combined with the past month of "the media isn't being as hard on Obama as they should be" and "look at my conundrum; I can't attack Obama for fear of alienating the black vote" whining.

I'm with you Kruse; I didn't see any tears. I wonder if the media had more of a run with it, given her "American Iron Lady" persona, as one WAPost writer put it. Regardless, I think what she *said* should be the focus. The point was that she showed she has a personal mission that's loftier than getting elected. I was more impressed with her fiery shot back at Edwards (who, admittedly, I abhore) during the debate than her emotional display. If anything, that's what's made me stand up and take notice and want to learn more. She wasn't just making a flowery speech. She was hammering about action -- something, ironically enough, more "male" if we're looking purely at stereotypes. I haven't made up my mind yet who I want to support, and since I'm not a declared Democrat I guess it doesn't matter. The problem I have with campaigns in general is they seem to get sufficiently shrouded in wordiness. Hillary's dead-horse talk about action gives me at least a shred of hope. I respect her for that, at least. ... Oh, and I haven't read your dot yet, but will get to that next ;-)

Quoted: Indeed, neither she nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama’s public style — or Bill Clinton’s either — without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits.

That just doesn't add up. She won BECAUSE she pretended to be emotional. She won because she acted human and womanly and people felt sorry for her because they related to her as a person and a woman. For the first time. So how is her gender the reason she needed to come back? Her struggles have to do with the fact that she makes Al Gore and John Kerry look like Kennedys (charisma-wise) and because she is a cynical centrist who treats voters like idiots.

Funny and true Drew.

Hilary just comes off as very aristocratic. She always seems (to me) to speak about the Presidency with a sense of entitlement to it. I thought the crying only amplified that, but apparently I was in the minority.

I think you might be underestimating NH voters, Drew. I bet tons of them were planning to vote for her long before the torrent of "tears" were unleashed. We're talking a strong liberal northereastern demographic here.

On a side note, I don't know what the hell people want. If you're a female candidate and you show emotion or softness in some way everyone will say you're not tough enough for the job. But if you do what Hillary HAS TO DO and be just as tough as the guys (a lack of charisma to you) then you're a cardboard candidate. This is why it's hard being a woman in leadership -- you're under a microscope that doesn't exist for men. You're damned if you do act "feminine" (whatever that means) and you're damned if you don't.

I think Hillary's playing her cards right--both personally and professionally. I think she's been doing so since the early 90s (why the hell else would a woman like her stay with a man who cheated?), because she's smarter than anyone thinks. Sometimes you need to just hunker down and be patient for years and years until you can get what you want because when you do the joke will be one them -- in her case, the health insurance companies and possibly Bill.

Kruse, my point was that people want their candidates to be human. There is no argument that Hillary's display hurt her even if I'm overestimating its effect. Edwards made a jackass comment, but no one else has. The response (other than from those who think it was carefully orchestrated) was overwhelmingly positive. I don't think she's between a rock and hard place at all. That's basically the crux of my problem with Steinem's argument. Being a woman has done nothing to hurt Hill. Being a poll-driven cyborg and a conservative has.

What bothers me most is the way Steinem dismisses race as a factor. Obama is not the one with the silver spoon in his mouth in this race; he is winning b/c he is a crazy talented politician and isn't in bed with the lobbyists that Hillary is beholden to. He is under the microscope for his race as much as she is for her gender. The difference is that he looks better under the scrutiny, not that he has to face less of it.

I think being black or a woman both hold very different and very complex challenges for presidential candidates, perhaps more so than white men can understand. (I know how that sounds, and I don't mean it towards anyone in particular, FYI.) I think the election of either a black person or a woman, may make things easier for the other the next time around. I have nothing against Obama. I am actually thrilled that there are so many candidates to get excited about this time, unlike 2004. I'd be thrilled if either Obama or Hillary won. I think I'll be moving to Europe or Canada if we get another republican though. Both Huckabee and Romney make me want to gnaw my own face off.