Despite the usual defenses of Obama made by other commenters here, the real person on the defense is Hillary Clinton. She's being faulted for being able to attract women and Latinos, but not white men. While the statistic that one in five young white men would never vote for her, doesn't that leaves another four who might? How can we know? The statistic is not fleshed out. Further, Ms. Chaudhry torpedoes her argument by citing Linda Hirshman as her "authority" on the woman's vote. I would have thought this fake would have been totally discredited by now, but she went on to wrap her misogyny in pseudosociology in the recent issue of the Washington Post that was such a firestorm for her fellow self-hating woman, Charlotte Allen.
She is the one who said twice the women are fickle. Direct quotes say, "Educated women focusing more on foreign policy fits with what we know about women and politics. Although at every class level, women know less than men do about politics in general, they know more as their education level goes up. So it may be that foreign policy issues are more salient to women with a college degree.
"Or it could just be that women with more education (and more money) relate on a subconscious level to the young and handsome Barack and Michelle Obama, with their white-porticoed mansion in one of the cooler Chicago neighborhoods and her Jimmy Choo shoes."
Ah yes, gimme those Choos, and let me talk to my man about what I'm supposed to believe. As Chaudhry insists, Hillary Clinton's problem is that some white men don't like her. Oh horrors!
Mar 10 2008 - 7:06pm