WTF is up with the slog? ECB's post just went *poof*

In one particularly telling strain of research, called the Goldberg paradigm, two sets of participants are asked to comment on something, perhaps a resume or a speech or a work scenario in which a boss speaks with an employee. To one audience, the person involved is described as a woman, in the other he is a man. Time and again, male participants (and, in some cases, women as well) judge the resume more harshly if it is a woman’s, or say the speech was strident if given by a woman but assertive if given by a man, or that the female boss was pushy while the male boss was concerned.

Women in these studies are typically judged to be less capable than men with identical qualifications, but it’s not impossible for them to be seen as competent. The problem is that if they’re understood to be capable, the majority of respondents also see them as less likable.

“The deal is that women generally fall into two alternatives: they are either seen as nice but stupid or smart but mean,” says Susan Fiske, a psychology professor at Princeton who specializes in stereotyping.

And unlike racial bias, there’s little evidence that these attitudes are softening.

I don't blame the voters, I blame Hillary for not getting Obama's votes.

I remember presidents who were ready on day one.

President Nixon.

President Ford.

President Bush (Sr).

Hmmm.

Maybe that's not such a great argument ...

Yeah, Hillary's a hard worker. Works the night shift. She works overtime. Can we afford a president who doesn't work hard? What is the word she is evoking here, with all this contrast of her hard working nature versus her, opponent's, um, non-workyness. You know. Doesn't like work? I guess she's trying to say Obama is, um, laz--

Oh. Did I think that? Surely that's not what Hils meant, is it?

(PS: I saw ECB's post too. She probably realized it sounded like more excuse making, so she pulled it.)

Yes, Will, I'm sure those are exactly like what a Hillary administration would be like. In the same vein, there are plenty of politicians who have ruled via the power of their charisma and not their policies. These would be: Hilter.

so obama is hitler now. do hillary supporters have any shame?

"Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice."

I'm sure the shareholders of Wal-Mart are grateful for Hillary Clinton's service on their Board of Directors while Barack Obama was wasting his time with community organizing work in poor neighborhoods in Chicago.

she is terrible. and she would lose to mccain.

think about it: every single one of those millions and millions of republicans who are willing to vote for obama, lost by nominating the single most polarizing figure (other than W) in American politics.

Bellevue, you are hilarious. The "rational" Obama supporters compare Hillary to hated Republican presidents (WiS) and imply that Hillary is racist (e), but johnnie is the bad guy when he responds showing how close they come to Godwin's Law.

Jesus fucking Christ. This is how you guys are WHEN YOUR GUY IS WINNING. Imagine what fucking crybabies you would be if he was losing.

Bellevue, yer an idjit. Reread the post with an eye to, as they call it in junior high these days, 'author's purpose.' Obama is no Hitler; he's more like Billy Graham.

I suppose this is about the best case she can make. It isn't terrible. Honestly, she's a competent politician in a very traditional mode -- of the sort the Dems have nominated over and over again, right down to "I have a plan to create five million jobs." We've seen the "I have a plan" approach maaany times, often accompanied by holding aloft a 242-page plan on health care or energy policies.

But really, what has sunk Democratic candidates time and again is not that they're weak; it's that they can't tell a good story. They substitute policy briefs for ideas; "I have a plan" (remember the "Social Security lockbox"?) for a vision. They want to be seen as respectable, well-read types when people want a vivid sensation of a real, coherent person.

The fact that policy droners can be attacked isn't because they're unwilling to respond; it's that there is so little of them there to begin with that the attacks demolish them. If people sense a real, likable person there they'll ignore the mudslinging (as they did for Dubya and Reagan and other genial nitwit Republicans).

I don't doubt that Hillary has good oppo research and can marshal spokesmen ready to kneecap at will. I'm sure she can rattle off a swift line at a debate. None of that matters. You have to present a real person with real ideas, and Hillary doesn't. She's corporate and reeks of the focus group.

Will in Seattle is not a rational ANYTHING. He is not representative of Obama supporters, and I for one deeply resent my views, or Obama's, being associated with his.

Point taken, Fnarf.

sven, the analogy was

hillary = ready to lead like nixon, ford, etc
obama = charismatic and dangerous leader like hitler

johnnie wasnt pointing out anything about the characterizations of hillary being close to hitler, he was saying that a charismatic leader like obama is like hitler.

author's purpose was to backtrack on an analogy between hitler and obama? nice.

No, Bellevue, I was commenting how how ridiculous analogies between current candidates and former rulers can get (be it Obama egal Lincoln or Hitler, or Hillary devenu Nixon).

Andy @10 is fairly close to the point, however. My one qualification would be Obama's performance in debates - they never match up to his speeches or advertisements. He is often mumbling or stuttering and doesn't inspire such confidence and enthusiasm as he does in other venues, which could be a problem if he wins the nomination. However, McCain will scare everyone and die in a few months anyway, so it might not be such a problem.

Why do people act like Obama is some big unknown question mark? His many years (more elected years than Clinton, actually) in the Illinois legislature, plus his 500+ page of stated policies and goals, give us a pretty good picture.

Plus, if we're making lame historical comparisons Obama has more experience coming into this than Lincoln had.

About Erica's vanishing post I've seen so much of the loaded, stereotyping language with Obama as well.

I've been fascinated by how the old "those negroes sure are good at hollaring, singing, and getting a crowd fired up but there can't be any substance there" stereotype comes into language pertaining to Obama's speeches.

Don't get me started how many times I've heard "well he sure is articulate".

And, REALLY don't get me started at the labelling of the Obama rallies call-and-response techique as "creepy" or "cultlike". Its a mainstay of the African-American church and has roots in the USA predating when most Americans' ancestors passed through Ellis Island.

JJ - '"those negroes sure are good at hollaring, singing, and getting a crowd fired up but there can't be any substance there" stereotype'
That is quite a convoluted stereotype, but not one that I've ever heard.

Some of Obama's rhetorical and political strategies do have analogues in black churches - they also have analogues in megachurches, and both can be creepy settings.

What gets my and others' dander up, however, is not that Obama doesn't have specifics, but that his momentum is not based on them. Rather it is based on more ethereal characteristics (change, hope, etc), which are largely disingenious if one actually looks at the specifics of his policies.

johnnie, I think you're here to do freelance ratfucking for the Republicans. If Ralph Nader was in the game you'd be working that side of it, but since that would get you nowhere, you're working the hippie nihilism angle. Anything to suppress the Democratic vote.

johnnie:

Those ethereal characteristics win general elections. Extensive policy briefs don't. I'm not even sure they should.

Elenchos - suck my clit.

Andy - they might win elections. Having McCain sing songs about imperialism and then die might also help with that. However, that doesn't mean that they're genuine, nor that one should not be skeptical of such claims, even if they come from one's own side.

I would also like to add:
Elenchos - suck harder

Andy - in terms of those characteristics, one of the riskier things about Obama is that he often doesn't project them during debates, which could be a problem in the general.

Baseless innuendo about yourself kind of pisses you off, eh?

But baseless innuendo that Obama's mere popularity is some kind of cultish mind game is healthy skepticism.

elenchos - my stating that Obama's popularity is cultish and based on 'mind games' (or rather, undeserved and group phenomena respectively) have been neither baseless nor innuendo. And yes, I do believe that people should always be skeptical of those who seek authority and power over them. It is a skill that many seem to forget come election time.

I don't get it either, how is it that she has so much more experience than Obama? How long has she been a senator? Are we counting the years she was First Lady as experience? She's no more qualified by experience than Obama. Stupid argument but its all she's got. She unelectable and if she runs she will get the moderates to vote for McCain.

I didn't say she wouldn't be competent.

I just pointed out it's a lame argument.

Only one of us has spent 35 years being a doer, a fighter and a champion for those who need a voice. That is what I would bring to the White House.

Just curious, how has she spent 35 years doing this? By being married to Bill? So by being married to a politician, you get credit for their work? Give me a break.

She's been a senator for what, 7 years? Before that she was never elected to anything. Obama might not have a lot of experience, but neither does she. The experience argument is beyond lame.

Bax - Beijing.

a plus)Great speech, and I believe she believes it, and she would be a pretty terrific president. b equals)Reminds me of John Kerry. c)She won´t win if she is the nominee. And the sniping at Obama will ALL be used as fuel against him by the Republicans in the general election.

@23
"And yes, I do believe that people should always be skeptical of those who seek authority and power over them."

Unless it's HRC?

Johnnie, are you saying that you think Obama's policies and his speeches don't match? That he's pulling a bait and switch? If so, I'd like to know the basis. I don't see it, myself.

@29 and 30. No, I think people should be equally skeptical of all candidates. However, I don't think Hill's momentum (or lack there of at this point) has come from promising anything that she can't deliver. This are small policy changes, generally in line with the middle-class liberal movement and not posing any great challenge to the status quo. If people want to buy into that, that's fine. It's not revolutionary, but it's what she has to offer.

As for Obama, his supporters act as though he can deliver the moon and more. The fact is, his policies are more or less the same as Hillary's. (And I've said this before, but I'll repeat: for the most part, the small differences drive me to HRC, such as a ban on govt support for oil extraction, with the exception of ending involvement with Iraq, where BO is stronger.) His rhetoric of change and transformation does not match up with the changes and transformations he is proposing and certainly pose no significant, structural challenge to inequity in today's world, which is why his candicacy's ability to inspire and shake the educated masses is, well, a sign of surprising ignorance.

I'm sorry. By surprising ignorance, I meant packaging over content or medium over message of signifier over signified. By surprising ignorance I also meant the whole-hearted enthusiasm that is generated by people unnable to tell the difference between the two, as though suddenly the jet suit meant victory and ignorance meant enlightenment.

"One of us is ready to be commander in chief in a dangerous world…"

Ooh! Ooh! I know the answer to this one! It's McCain!

Right?

Christ. On the chance that she does win the nomination, this platform's not going to be so successful against a Republican war hero/hawk...

@31
"his supporters act as though he can deliver the moon and more."

I'll thank you not to speak for me. It's arrogant and condescending - which are the hallmark traits of "Hils"' campaign and why she's not going to get the nomination.

There's no getting around the fact that Obama is not only more charismatic than Hillary, but appeals to many more segments of the voting population. Plus his campaign isn't engaging in low shit like HRCs desperate and hysterical charges of plagiarism.

AMB - you're right. I shouldn't have phrased that as "his supporters act as though he can deliver the moon and more." It should state that his campaign promises that he can deliver the moon and more. One should not confuse the active with the passively swayed. Regardless, there remains the fact that his policies are more or less the same as Hillary's and he certainly does not legitimate the rabid world-transforming agency ascribed to him.

As for claims of plagiarism. While they shouldn't destroy anyone's world view, are you denying that Obama cribbed notes from another politician, made only slight changes to wording and then claimed them as his own? Because that's basically what he did, and it's an elementary case of what plagiarism is. One can ascribe ownership after the fact, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama waited until he was called out to cite his sources. So not messiah-like.

I don't think I've ever seen Clinton actually provide a factual basis for her assertions that Obama isn't going to be "ready on day one". Her argument here seems to be:

* McCain doesn't know what he's doing
* I do
* Therefore, Obama doesn't know what he's doing

WTF?

@35

"Cribbed" implies that it was illicit, or without acknowledgement. The only controversy here is that Clinton's camp is trying to blow it up into something it isn't.

"I don't think Hill's momentum (or lack there of at this point) has come from promising anything that she can't deliver"

Oh come on, what has Obama "promised"? If you use a loose definition of promise (saying you will do something) then Hillary has also "promised" plenty of things she probably can't deliver. Do you really think all of Clinton's proposals would make it through Congress unscathed? Puh-lease. Obama's won't either, save for a huge blowout for the congressional Democrats (which, in my opinion, Obama is *way* more likely to deliver). Even then, it is going to get nitpicked.

Unless the proposal is purely under executive branch authority, I think any halfway competent political observer knows that the president is bound by Congress on a lot of, if not most of, their policy proposals. At best, they are promising to try as hard as they can. No sane candidate "promises" to deliver anything that Congress could block, and I don't think Obama is doing that.

Also, you act like it is Obama making the promises, and saying Hillary doesn't make promises she can't deliver. Then you say, actually, it's Obama's supporters who are making the promises. What gives?

Holy crap. Godwin's Law evoked in only the 4th comment . . . that's gotta be some kind of record.

Alright, I think it's about time for me to comment at johnnie.

Not to be rude, but would you take a look around you and notice the world as it is now? Do you notice how different it was from just 2 months ago? Did you go to you caucus and see the record-making clusterfuck of people there? Have you heard about the record turnouts in just about every state, including Hawai'i where the turn out was 700% over 2004?

Did you not hear about the 21,000+ people he spoke to at the Key Arena, and similar crowds everywhere he goes?

Fill your pockets with cynicism if you like, but you can't deny the fact that people are getting involved again, and it is in large part due to Obama's "empty rhetoric" and his excellent ground game.

The reason Obama is different. . . the reason he is not a cult leader . . . the reason we are not kool-aid drinkers . . .
is that he doesn't just make you want to follow. He makes you want to lead.

And if that isn't the most abrupt, 180-degree change from the politics of Bush, I don't know what is, sir. I don't know what is.

I know this is a bit late, Zelb, but I’ll respond anyway, and I’ll try to keep it quick.

One should not confuse the popularity or enthusiasm generated for a candidate with any valid reason to support that candidate. That record numbers of people are involved in the primary is nice, but it does not mean that any of the candidates deserve such fervor.

You ask if I notice how different the world is now than it is two months ago. Honestly, I do not. Not in any way that is more significant than changing the color of one’s sunglasses. People are still sliding into poverty as they were two months ago. People are still festering in poverty as they were two months ago. The US is still involved in military, economic and political imperialism as it was two months ago. Species are dying at the fastest rate ever recorder, perhaps a bit faster than they were two months ago. Women are still earning less, being objectified by the media and raped and abused by men, probably at the same rate as they were two months ago. The environment’s ability to sustain itself is still under assault as it was two months ago. In NYC, where I live, even the temperature is still the same as it was two months ago. Bad poetry is still being written, as it was two months ago.

None of the candidates offer any substantive changes to the root causes of these problems. A bandaid policy here and there, yes. Significant structural modifications or any radical action to truly confront the root of our problems? No.

I work with poor kids in the ghetto. They are just as poor as they were two months ago, and an Obama or Clinton administration will probably keep them just as poor and disenfranchised as they would be otherwise. I work with sick kids in a polluted environment and I see no large solution coming from Obama or Clinton or McCain. I work with brown kids, and they’ll be just as brown and subject to just as much discrimination regardless of who is president. I could go on and on, but this parallel structure is getting tired.

You say that Obama inspires his followers to become leaders. I would say that he inspires them to rally, and to forget any sense of irony or skepticism that they might have about those in power. In that way, he may even be making significant change *less* likely.