This all may be true, but it's also worth noting that Hillary is distinctly uninspiring when speaking.  Yes, she's a well-informed very capable wonk.  Yes, she'd be a great President in terms of competency and ability.  Yes, the differences in policy between her proposals and Obama's are perhaps just enough to slip a sheet of paper between them.

But Hillary had the misfortune to run into the buzzsaw of the first inspiring leader since Clinton in 1992.  I think she and her campaign thought that this factor wouldn't be capable of swaying that many voters: after 7 years of sheer incompetence and idiocy, people would rush to elect someone who we could be sure wouldn't have a reverse Midas touch, everything turning to lead at a glance.  But in addition to incompetence, the Bush Administration has been relentlessly negative, making people despair for our country, economy, the world, inspiring only fear, ennui, and hatred.  The balm of someone who can be inspiring, someone whose message tells us that, "Yes, we can" has been an even bigger inspiration than just the notion of someone who doesn't suck at everything they do.

That's really been the spur for my support of Obama.  I'll happily vote for Clinton in the general if she wins the nomination.  But I voted for Obama in the primary because (in addition to his well developed policy positions), it's nice to feel like there's a reason to vote for someone besides simple logistical and administrative competence.

I'm skeptical of the claim that the media is kinder on Obama than on Hillary. They all assume that, on some level, Obama and Hillary have run a similar campaign, and are similar people.

If I'm a ruthless SOB and I run for president, do I get to complain when the media paints me as a ruthless SOB?

Isaac,

You and tnr  are a part of  the media. So, why don’t you explain  why do you personally write  hysterically  anti-Clinton and pro -Obama  comments, why do you subject her  double standards,?  Why do  you  let Obama   get away  “with a stunning amount of hypocrisy”,  why do you  applaud   “the way that Obama eviscerate  his rival in his stump speeches”  while   condemn   “Clinton’s plunge into negative territory”

Why did you  hammer  for weeks    “that Clinton’s famous fumbling of a question about whether illegal immigrants should be allowed to have driver’s licenses” ,  “—whereas Obama’s flubbing of the same question in the next debate was essentially let slide” by you?

What’re journalistic standards at tnr?

Um..."What’re journalistic standards at tnr?"

Not "objectivity" <gasp> since this is an opinion journal not a newspaper which makes any claims to impartial coverage.

Gaiseric455,

Does it mean that it’s OK for tnr to be an a part of Obama propaganda machine?

"she’ll do anything to win; she can’t be trusted, she’s ethically challenged; she’s manipulative, calculating, and programmed.”

This is classic gender unease -- the stereotype of the manipulative, calculating woman who "can't be trusted." It is a narrative we are as easily familiar with as we are uncomfortablyhunfamiliar with any kind of respectful narrative that places a woman in the most powerful position in our society.

Please note, I said "gender unease" not "sexism." The simple fact is that a woman seriously pursuing power at this level, this directly, is culture changing and as uncomfortable for women as for men. It challenges everyone's notion of what power looks like, it falls outside our traditional political narratives, etc. The discomfort, fear and animosity it engenders is totally predictable.

Let’s look at her campaign in context, please. Clinton, despite the overwhelming hostility of the media and resistance from many in the establishment of her own party, is not simply the first “credible” female candidate (yes, made “credible” as precedent setting female political figures have most often been, by her connection to a powerful male politician), she is the first in our history to ever win even ONE delegate assigning primary.  The very first. The ONLY one. If she had never won another primary or caucus after New Hampshire she would still have shattered the historical record.

But she has done much more than that. She has come within spitting distance of the nomination. Remember, Jesse Jackson, 20 years ago, hindered by race but not gender, won 11 primary and caucus states. More than Hillary has won so far. No one at the time suggested that the ONLY reason he didn't win the nomination was because of one campaign argument or because he "shot himself in the foot."  It would have been seen as absurd and dishonest to suggest at that time that there weren't some larger cultural factors also at play.

It is equally absurd to overlook those kind of cultural factors when considering Hillary Clinton's historic bid for the presidency.

True points enmense about gender dynamics. I like that phrase "gender unease."  

But all of the accomplishments you mention make it all the more tragic that Hillary is not more personally likable, someone I feel I can trust or truly a feminist trailblazer in her rise to power.  

As a feminist, I believe its patronzing, infantilzing and ultimately sexist to hold her to lower standards of bhavior or accountabilty for her choices in this campaign than I would any other candidate, even taking into consideration the obvious sexism of some of her critiques.  There are legitimate reasons a person of either gender can have a real probem with her.  It behooves all feminists to acknowledge that.  If everything is sexism, nothing is.

sorry for my typical zillions of typos - cooking dinner for kids, inlaws AND trying to check in here - it's hard on the editing impulses, sorry -

hmm...the overwhelmingly liberal Media hates Clinton, as does the RAM (Republican attack machine), and we should choose Hillary as our nominee in the face of this perfect storm why again? At some point Clinton supporters have to put their stubborn pride aside and realize that if so many people hate her (and you can feel unfairly, that is fine) that maybe you should seriously consider giving it up. Whining "why don't you like me" isn't going to make anyone like you, nor is complaining likely to either.

jacob, when I was young I used to feel bad that the handsome, smooth jock got all the dates, but eventually I got over it.  your resentment of the fact that in life some people are just more naturally popular is something you and the Clinton supporters have to get over with.

Hillarys down with hope, lets get even campaign is just too depressing.

Backton,

I resent when a rapist brags about raping a woman and says that she deserves who she got because she is a slut.

I resent when Isaac  brags about dishonest coverage of Clinton campaign and  says that she deserves who she got because she is .....

"some people are just more naturally popular is something you and the Clinton supporters have to get over with."

I think that Clinton is extremely popular.     Twenty percent  of Democratic voters automatically vote for Obama because of ethnic pride. The  media is   overwhelmingly   against Clinton and  for Obama and McCain. Still Clinton is essentially is tied in polls with Obama and McCain. This is an incredible achievement.

This is a private, opinion-oriented journal.  If TNR chooses they can be part of any propaganda machine they want.  That worked out splendidly for them when they chose to come out in favor of the Iraq war, right? (irony alert).  

If you don't like it, you can, you know, not read it...

Democrats prefer Obama, but Clinton could care less.

Gallup Daily: Tracking Election 2008

www.gallup.com/.../Gallup-Daily-Tracking-Election-2008.aspx

Obama -- 49%

Clinton -- 42%

---------------------------------------

Top Clinton Adviser Says Superdelegates Will Decide Election, Obama’s Victories ‘Irrelevant

youdecide08.foxnews.com/.../top-clinton-adviser-says-superdelegates-will-decide-election-obamas-victories-irrelevant

One sits and waits for tnr's crush on Obama to wane so we get some balanced reporting.  ditto with all the other liberal outlets.  Clinton I hear wins the over 50 yrs old under 50k a year crowd but no talk how Obama might lose them in November (kind of sound like Reagan democrats to me).  But Obama wins big in RED states with independents, I'm less than convinced they'll last till November.  Clinton despite the overwhelmingly negative press wins in states that vote democratic.  Perhaps tnr is still chastined by its pro-war stance and can't that Hillary hasn't bowed to the hysterical element.  Speaking of, the netroots are for the most part twits who would rather lose and I fear tnr has joined them.  When was the last time the GOP allowed the media pick its candidate?  When was the last time the GOP worried about electibility in February (for God sake they went with two Bush's).  Since I was born they're up 7-3 in presidential elections and the lemming-left still want to run off the cliff every 4 years.  No lets not return to those two elections when we won, no couldn't have that, that winning is so dirty.  Gobshites.      

I actually said something along the same lines as to why Obama gets positive press its hard to write negative pieces on someone who is about bringing positive changes and bringing people together to make Washington work. Hillary is always talking about fighting and being proud she can fight couple that with dubious remarks regarding race and running around trying to seat ghost delegates and you are basically inviting negative coverage.

I wonder what she is implying about Obama not being tested by the repuplicans and that he is going to supposedly fall apart when tested. Does she know something that we dont? Its almost as if s he is inviting a witch hunt on the guy. The irony is throughout all this he has carried himself with poise. The Clinton's invite negative press and now she is not turning over her taxes until she wins the nomination. My thing is if she is tried and tested why does she have to be afraid.

Carol

I second Blackton's comments...

While I'd love to be able to support a woman for president, I just have a really hard time with Hillary. Perhaps it's partly the suggestion we'd be going back to the 90's which, despite the Clintons' 8 years in the White House, were some pretty tough times for the party at both the national and many state levels.

perhaps it's also the campaign's "tough enough to fight Republicans" line which is basically code for, we'll sling mud and do whatever we have to do.

Perhaps it's also the constantly changing messages which call into question whether she really has core beliefs at all.

And perhaps it is this slimy backhanded attempt to change the rules in FL and MI after the fact because it would benefit her.

Perhaps it is ALL OF THAT TOGETHER which suggests to me and lots of other people that this is not about US. It isn't about what is good for the country. it isn't about what is good for the Party. It is only about what is good for the CLintons and their desire to spend 8 more years at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Add to all this that Hillary is just frankly not all that inspiring. Whereas Obama obviously is. Hey, I hated everything that Reagan stood for but let's face it, the "Shining City on a Hill" thing worked out pretty well for him. People were drawn to that.

Dems have done the competent policy wonk thing a time or two and, if we want to check how that worked out, just ask President's Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry.

I agree, it’s hard for Isaac Chotiner and other at tnr to write negative pieces on Obama if they think that Obama   is about bringing positive changes and bringing people together to make Washington work.  It’s easy to become an Obama groupie and overlook :

“The way that Obama’s evisceration of his rival in his stump speeches was applauded by the media—whereas Clinton’s plunge into negative territory was widely condemned. The way that Clinton was roundly criticized for being inaccessible, and thus unaccountable, to the press—when Obama has since January been even less available for questioning than she”.

But is this a  right thing to do, is this good for American democracy?

After  investing so much in the Obama campaign,  would Isaac Chotiner and other at tnr continue to defend  President Obama unconditionally to the bitter end? What else would they be willing to overlook?

Jacob's criticism of TNR's bias and the double standard sometimes applied to Hillary in the media are fair.  I don't know a woman of either party or either campaign for the Dem nomination that doesn't just loathe Chris Matthews - this anger is sometimes the only thing that keeps the conversations between female Obama and Hillary supporters cordial.  

To answer jacobs question - is this good for America? Yes and no: no, in that paying a ghoul like Matthews millions to spew sexism at the public is particularly noxious to all involved. Yes in that this is so gross, people are demanding change.  This is good.

TNR is allowed to say whatever is wants, don't read it if you don't like the bias. That seems pretty straight forward to me.  There has been maybe one semi-positive article on Hillary in ten years and you come here looking for one now?  Suit yourself, but postive or even fair coverage in an opinion journal is not something owed to anyone.

If voters want to consider these dynamics - and the fairness/unfairness of them - in choosing who to support, they have every right to do so, it's not my thought process but oh well.

These issues should be part of the dialouge when trying to figure out how we can evolve our political culture and I do see that slowly happening. There will always be sexist pigs, but over time - they may have to stay on their barstools rather than getting their own TV show. I hope so.  It happened with the open racists.  Ask George Allen.

But it is impossible to argue that this gives Hillary permission to befowl the nomination process with her cheating.  

You can either win the way everyone agreed upon going in, or you cannot.  

Harold Ikes comments this morning have shamed even my Hillary friends.  For him to blithely embrace such naked hypocrisy without even a cringe is really something to see - so let me get this straight (so to say): despite the fact that YOU voted to strip the delegates, now you don't think so anymore? Since it doesn't help your candidate cheat her way into the nomination?  As I've said before - the amorality is breathtaking.

It's rough that 50% of the population does not like Hillary, but no one ever said life was fair - it isn't and no one owes anyone else because of that!  Ask Al Gore.  Too bad.  

Hating Hillary for pushing this on the country is NOT bias or mysoginy, she wishes!

Wandreycer1 ,

Of course,  TNR, Matthews,  Rush Limbaugh are is allowed to say whatever they  want.

I’m just curious what’re TNR.’s justifications for not providing  a fair coverage .

“To answer jacobs question - is this good for America? Yes and no: no,”

I think that the dishonest journalism  is bad for America.  Ask Al Gore.  We will  be paying  for such dishonesty for a long time We can change this. Yes, we can.

Ok Jacob - I agree with you about Al Gore and the impact of bad journalism on our country.  I was thinking more about acceptable sexism - which is loathsome and obvious in some of the coverage, but your point is taken.  

But not all the negative coverage of Hillary is sexism or unfair. Lots of it is fair - in my mind, most of it, especially lately. But these things are in the eye of the beholder.  

Some of the negative feelings Hillary supporters have towards Obama supporters also seem fair to me.  That's why I refer to myself as a kool-aid drinker now, it is true.  Its sort of a nod to the validity of Hillary people's views.    

Wandreycer1,

I agree that  is "not all the negative coverage of Hillary is sexism or unfair".  She is not a saint.

I haven't read Heilemann's column yet, but from the description here it sort of sounds like he's saying Hillary gets bad press coverage because Hillary gets bad press coverage.  Where does he suppose this "meta-narrative" came from?  The argument is disingenuous because it implies that the press' meta-narratives are based on some objective reality other than the conformist group-think of the press itself.

Everyday, Hillary's campaign and her supporters say and do lots of things.  Does anyone here suppose that they know everything that Hillary and her campaign has said and done?  Of course not.  What we know about her campaign - or any of the campaigns - is what the national press decides is important.  But the thing about preconceptions is that once you have them, every little thing that reinforces them seems more important than anything that contradicts them.  That's human nature and that's difinitely the way our press works, TNR included.  

If I could magically transform the "meta-narrative" of Obama in the minds of the press into something different overnight - say, "phony and sneaky," for example - then you could be sure that even though absolutely nothing changed about Obama and his campaign themselves, the press' coverage of him would suddenly be filled with anecdotal insights about his sneakiness and phoniness.  

This isn't an argument against voting for Obama.  He  may very well turn out to be the greatest thing in the world since peanutbutter and jelly - I truly hope so.  But we liberals need to wake up and realize what the press has been doing to the majority of our leaders.  People like to mention Dukakis, Gore and Kerry as examples of the folly of picking "uninspiring" policy wonks, as if this is some constitutional failing of Democrats.  Come on people, do you really think either Bush could ever be described as "inspiring" to anyone but the true believer?  Even Reagan was only "inspiring" with the full cooperation of the press.  In fact, Dukakis Gore and Kerry were all killed by "meta-narratives," just like Hillary is being killed by meta-narrative.  

I like Obama and I've already cast my vote for him.  But I'm also dissapointed in him.  When he started out, with his talk of changing politics, I thought maybe he was talking about the way phony and irrelevant meta-narratives shape our politics.  Maybe he was.  But at some point, he seems to have realized that the meta-narratives in play right now actually benefit him, so he embraced them with a gusto.  Good for Obama, but not necessarily good for America, in my opinion.   By all means, lets keep denigrating those boring old competent policy wonks and searching for leaders that make us feel warm and fuzzy.  

jacob IS right about  a certain amount of letting Obama slide, and I wish that it didn't happen, because that creates a backlash. My opinion is that Clinton's meta-narrative is true, and that trying to get the MI and FL votes - especially the MI - just confirms that beyond the shadow of a doubt.

And newdex, I don't see Obama denigrating wonkiness - I see him getting wonkier in his speeches [he's always been wonky underneath it all]. What I keep seeing is the Clintons denigrating inspirational speakers - starting with that disasterous MLK/LBJ comparison - as though you can't be inspirational and wonky both.

Nobody complained about the press more than I did last time, after my darling Dean got his Scream played again and again and again, because it fit the "angry" narrative - when it wasn't even angry. And before that he got painted as Mr. Antiwar Hippie even though he was very fiscally conservative and had the only balanced state budget in the country. He had an "A" rating from the NRA too. He might have had a chance against Bush, you know.

So I can feel the pain of the HIllary people, except I can't help but think that in her case it kind of fits. In fact, I think she's got more rep than she deserves about being "competent" - the counter-meta of her campaign's mismanagement is not getting the MSM press it warrants. Not only can you be inspiring and competent, but you can be uninspiring and incompetent.

At the end of the Dean campaign the press presented him with a t-shirt that said "We have the power." One of the reasons the media hates both Clintons is because they haven't, yet, been brought down by that power.

Personally, I don't think any of the remaining candidates in either party has what will be needed to have a successful presidency in the aftermath of Bush. But, if by some miracle, Hillary Clinton does the unlikely and wins the nomination, and then goes on in spite of the most hysterical press animosity we will likely ever see, to win the presidency, she will have proved she has the one characteristic that may turn out to be most important for the next president; the ability to move effectively ahead in an environment of overwhelming hostility. Because no president who is willing to do the hard things that will need to be done over the next few years is going to be a popular president.

"I resent when a rapist brags about raping a woman and says that she deserves who she got because she is a slut."

good lord, that is reprehensible thing to say. Are you accusing Obama of Raping Hillary because the MSM criticizes her? That equivalence to even bring this up diminshes rape. Don't put rape in this kind of conversation, it is vile. You can resent Obama for being a media darling fine, but you should apologize for that statement.

psantillana: you say the media is letting Obama slide, not criticizing him enough, but unless he does something unethical, or loses a few contests, why would the MSM criticize him?

Hillary is vetted, right? except it is she who won't release her tax returns, and it is she who won't pressure Bill to open up the archives, and it is Bill who has the loads of scandals, some of which are coming to light even now. But sure, in the interest of fairness lets criticize Obama even if he has done nothing wrong.

right now, jacob is criticizing TNR for writing the truth as the people in TNR see it. He resents criticism but does not rebut it, or offer fresh or realistic criticism of Obama beyond: he is an inspiring speaker, that is bad.

This one I love: I think that Clinton is extremely popular.     Twenty percent  of Democratic voters automatically vote for Obama because of ethnic pride.

Oh, and the 50% plus who vote for Hillary do it because of gender pride. Except sadly there are not enough women who are proud of being women then are they?

This campaign of hers has been a disaster. She is one of the most famous women in the world, with a very (anyway was) popular expresident husband, untold financial backing, going against a young black man with the Arabic name of Barack Hussein Obama, and she is losing!!! This amidst a war on terror against people with arabic names. I mean Hussein and Obama in the same name, one name is reviled and the other is almost the same as Osama. And she is losing!!!!

psantillana, I don't think Obama himself has denigrated wonkiness in the least.  I do think that, after intending originally to stay above it, he made a conscious decision at some point to embrace the media's meta-narrative of Hillary because it works to his benefit, in effect embracing the shallow and damaging ways of politics as usual.  

This is what really bothers me about many of his supporters.  Most of us have come to realize that there's something very wrong with the shallow and distorted way the media covers our campaigns and our leaders.  The reason so many people have such strongly negative views of Hillary is the exact same reason so many Americans thought Al Gore was a big stiff phony who couldn't tell the truth in 2000, that Howard Dean was an unhinged lunatic or that John Kerry was an elitist snob.  

If we liberals were smart, we'd do everything we could to kick the press' ass for foisting thier snooty conformist narratives down our throats every election.   We'd be outraged at the idea that our national press clique's personal feelings of affection or dislike for candidates determines who our president will be.  Instead, since we happen to have a charismatic candidate with whom the press happens to be in love, Obama supporters couldn't seem to care less about any of that.  

Well, here's hoping that we always have inspirational charismatic candidates with whom the press is in love from here on out.  

"But, if by some miracle, Hillary Clinton does the unlikely and wins the nomination, and then goes on in spite of the most hysterical press animosity we will likely ever see, to win the presidency"

I, for one, don't want to trust in a miracle. Obama, otoh, has some of the best press in recent memory, why not take advantage of it to first win the White House.

I do agree that the next President is due for a shitstorm domestically and internationally. And Obama's poll numbers will go down, but why don't we worry about that after he becomes President instead of hoping for a miracle of Hillary winning the Presidency, shall we?

Blackton,

"right now, jacob is criticizing TNR for writing the truth as the people in TNR see it."

You misunderstood me. I’m criticizing TNR for intentionally providing the bias coverage and then using the fact that  TNR  is biased as a prove that something wrong with HRC. I think that the Isaac Chotiner’s argument  is a perfect example of  chutzpah. It’s like  a  boy, having just been convicted of murdering his parents, begs the judge for leniency because he is an orphan.

FYI, I don’t blame Obama for raping HRC or killing his parents :-)

fair enough Jacob, I just thought that one sentence was over the line, but I will just take it as a bad analogy and leave it at that.

I’m criticizing TNR for intentionally providing the bias coverage and then using the fact that TNR  is biased as a prove (sic) that something wrong with HRC.

Is a fair point, kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. But that begs the question: why the bias? why is Hillary hated but Obama and McCain loved? McCain can be said to have many flaws, being a master manipulator of the MSM is not one of them.

It seems to me the Democrats should nominate someone who matches his strength with the MSM, and not one who has been doing a terrible job of late.

Granted, I think a fair amount of it is that the MSM loves winners, and Hillary has not been winning lately. If she were to win TOP, then expect a lot of great coverage for her as the comeback kid of comeback kids.

[Patrick Appel] John Heilemann tries to explain the media coverage of Obama and Clinton: Campaigns are, at bottom, a competition between memes: infectious ideas that gather force through sheer repetition. The most powerful of these memes are what Just

blackton --

I worry about the fact that Obama appears to want his supporters to adore him. How will he react when he no longer feels the love?

blackton - I don't think Obama has done anything to deserve the media's scorn. I'm talking about little stuff like when they nag on Clinton for waffling on the driver's license for illegal aliens issue, then Obama waffles and they don't nag him on it - really really tiny stuff - if they are letting him slide when they are nailing her, then yeah, not fair.

esmense, I don't see Obama wanting love like that at all. He's not Britney Spears. I see both Clintons as more about their personal relationships to the public. That whole "I listened to you and found my voice" thing. It's so egocentric. What about Obama gives you that impression?

psantillana --

Obama's campaign is all about him -- his "charisma," his "inspiring" speaking ability, the size of his large, excited and adoring crowds, how "appealing" and "likeable" he is. The argument for his presidency appears to be that "people like me, they really like me."

And you are right, he doesn't listen to voters. He avoids venues, like town hall meetings, in which voters can question or criticize him directly. His discomfort with listening to, as opposed to preaching at, was extremely apparent at two events I saw, aimed at female voters, that he staged (for the cameras) in anticipation of Super Tuesday. In both cases, Obama was seated at the head of a table, flanked on each side by two adoring women. Instead of the women questioning him, he questioned the women (including asking personal questions about the sources of their income). It was an attempt to "connect" with women and their concerns in the same way that Clinton does at her town hall meetings. But, the Obama campaign's overwhelming need to tightly control the situation and make it all about him -- always make him the star -- rather than take a chance on the voters, made the event seem extremely stilted, and, much worse, made Obama appear patronizing.  He spoke and spoke and spoke, expecting the women to nod along in agreement, as if they were just props in his star vehicle (which they were). His body language and the non-verbal communication inherent in how the event was set up were terrible. The unspoken communication of those events; this is a man who is extremely uncomfortable if he is not the adored center of attention.

esmense, and where did you get your degree in psychology? please, talk to people who know Obama in Chicago. 4 years ago he was a nobody, a small fish in the big world of Illinois politics. Recently I met a man on a plane who knew him a bit since they live in the same neighborhood. The portrait this guy portrayed is not this media starved attention hound, but of a regular guy. and he was. How could he not be? Do you think he has changed so much in a few short years? Hillary, meanwhile, has been walking in rarefied air for nearly 30 years, as first lady in Arkansas, Walmart board member, first lady, and now Senator. I doubt she has any idea how much a loaf of bread costs.

As to the campaign, come on, these things are micromanaged down to the candidates passing gas. Control the message and the dynamics as much as possible. Artificial, hell yes, but that is true with all candidates who are successful.

This isn't complicated.  The media doesn't like the Clintons because they know the Clintons.  They've had sixteen long years of them.

Even journalists can't be snookered forever.

newdex writes, "...The reason so many people have such strongly negative views of Hillary is the exact same reason so many Americans thought Al Gore was a big stiff phony who couldn't tell the truth in 2000, that Howard Dean was an unhinged lunatic or that John Kerry was an elitist snob."

newdex, give us a break.  Do you think the MSM talk us all into these opinions?  I mean, we're not getting the bulk of our info from newspaper reporters, pundits, or talking heads.

We sit and watch these politicians by the hour.  See their speeches, their debates, the advertising that they declare they approved.

Al Gore is not a big stiff phony?  He sure is stiff.  He sure managed to leverage $50 million off "global warming" while creating a carbon footprint 500x larger than the average citizen.

Howard Dean never says anything that sounds a bit eccentric, if not truly unhinged?

And, there is nothing in John Kerry's demeanor, lifestyle, or the fact that he only marries extremely rich women to give the impression that he's an elitist?

As Mitt Romney's father once said, we're just all being "brainwashed".