Michael, with all due respect, I have to point out that cheering for the preferred presidential candidate may easily be of more importance (and therefore involve a lot more emotion) than rooting for the preferred sports team. Entertaining as they are, sport matches are not of nearly as much importance as elections that decide the president, particularly in periods of crisis. I personally would far sooner get over the loss of my favorite team than the defeat of the politician to whom I wish success with his/her presidential bid. Your analogy, therefore, does not quite work.

Cheap shot, Crowley.  I'm not surprised you don't understand her commitment to her supporters, but would you be posting the same if Obama were in this situation?  

Regardless, the reconciliation needs more momentum, making your post counterproductive.  I truly believe it MATTERS how this thing ends.  Don't kick her on the way out.

Finally, she can "Be" anything she wants to be, defiant or compliant or any other assorted word ending with "iant."  

Good thing I'm evolved enough to not read your first sentence as a patronizing description of how a woman "should" be.  

Although I'm no fan of Hillary's and do think there's a real danger in her continuing her campaign, I honestly can't fault her for continuing. How many contests are left? Three? Four? A better analogy than the Knicks might be that of a runner who's virtually gone the entire distance. What's the point of stopping in the last tenth of a mile? She really has nothing to lose at this point by taking the race to the last primary on June 3.

This might be the place for me to observe that over the last week TNR has all but banished Hillary from posts at the Stump and the Plank and that there's suddenly much more coverage of McCain than Clinton. (And no sign of pccostello, just FYI.) Despite her claims to the contrary, I do think that the media is starting to pivot away from her match up with Obama partly because her struggle does seem kind of sad now.

Michael, this is the American way, or at least the American mythology:  fight until nothing is left.  Yes, it might not make any sense if you rationalize it, but rationality has never been one of America's defining characteristics.  And occasionally, it has worked.

As for Clinton, the best example may be General Walton Walker during the Korean War.  He was in charge of defending South Korea until the main US military could arrive.  Being overwhelmed, he was nearly driven completely out of South Korea by the North.  But then, MacArthur arrived, and the tide turned.  I think she's hoping for her MacArthur to arrive in the form of a gaffe by Obama, but she's being a "real" American by acting exactly the way that we all think Americans act.

Interestingly, we have a stretch of highway here in the Dallas area named after Walton Walker.

Hillary hasn't exactly been blown out, though Obama has a nearly insurmountable lead and the superdelegates are trending in the wrong direction for her.

Michael, this is the American way, or at least the American mythology:  fight until nothing is left.  Yes, it might not make any sense if you rationalize it, but rationality has never been one of America's defining characteristics.  And occasionally, it has worked.

As for Clinton, the best example may be General Walton Walker during the Korean War.  He was in charge of defending South Korea until the main US military could arrive.  Being overwhelmed, he was nearly driven completely out of South Korea by the North.  But then, MacArthur arrived, and the tide turned.  I think she's hoping for her MacArthur to arrive in the form of a gaffe by Obama, but she's being a "real" American by acting exactly the way that we all think Americans act.

Interestingly, we have a stretch of highway here in the Dallas area named after Walton Walker.

You're right Hilary. It isn't NEARLY over.  Its actually WAY PAST over!!!

Look. I don't begrudge Hillary staying in as long as she wants to - just so long as she isn't lobbing grenades at the guy who is certain to be the nominee at this point. But I do have to say that these comments, like insisting that "more people have voted for her than anyone else" are just counterproductive for her. It is the same kind of parsing, twisting of reality within an inch of the breaking point, that people don't like about her or her husband. Every time she does this, it brings back floods of memories of Bill's infamous "what the meaning of 'is' is."  If she wants to keep insisting that she's most qualified, most electable, whatever. But Hillary, stop inventing new metrics to pretend you're winning when you are demonstrably not.

Does this make Hillary James Dolan and Mark Penn Isiah?  Egad!

And, good god, Tammy.  Why is any criticism of Hillary sexist?  First, if you thimk Mike has been carrying water for the Obama campaign, I suggest you read his writings a little more closely.  Second, you're right that it matters how this thing ends--with Obama winning the presidency in November.  I would think that this is what any candidate in Hillary's position would be asking him or herself when they could no longer win.  Yet it really doesn't seem to be the question on Hillary's mind, at least on certain days.   And if she doesn't call it quits and endorse Obama on June 4 (which is ridiculously late to begin with), I think it would be apparent that she cares a lot more about herself than the party.

Actually, the analogy makes perfect sense:  Crowley isn't saying forfeit with 9 to go in the 4th, but rather Hillary should clear the bench (The team in the lead clears the bench too, usually.  Unless it's 1989 and Roy Williams gets pissed at Rick Pitino, and so leaves the starters in until KU wins 150-95 at Rupp).  Still, there's a good reason for it: Taking out your starers rests them so they don't get exhausted for the next game, and also makes sure neither team's players risk an injury that could really hurt them the rest of the way.  Huckabee and McCain after Super Tuesday cleared their benches even though they fought on til Ohio and Texas.  Hillary should do the same (Obama seems to have done it already vis a vis Hillary, not really criticizing her much now).  Fighting full strength risks an injury to the party and to the nominee: It isn't worth it to struggle to only lose by fewer double digits.

Yes, please, let HRC play out the string. She's past the point of bowing out gracefully - and furthering the reconciliation - already.

Besides, her behavior over the past several weeks has greatly reduced the chances of a "dream ticket," and that is fine and dandy by me. She may do even more to dig her own grave veep-wise in the next three weeks - let her! Perhaps some of her Kentucky supporters will emulate their West Virginia counterparts and talk to the press about how they don't a black man in the White House.

Tammy - I just do not get it, but I will try.  

Here is my experience and most of the women I know.  We're not every female supporter of Obama's of course, but I can only speak for us.  These are close to my Mom's thoughts too, she started a group outside of Portland, Oregon called Geezers for Obama, which is mostly 60, 70 and 80 something year old women.  

I'm a feminist (I think so anyway, the behavior of many self-proclaimed feminists during this campaign has alienated me from the word right now, but I'll still call myself that for short cut sake) and Crowley's first sentence was not in the slightest big sexist.  If everything is sexist, nothing is.  

There has to be some way for men to have legitimate beefs with a woman - who has chosen to be in the public sphere in the biggest way possible - and not be bullied into silence about it, otherwise the entire concept of femiism is just another ideology, complete with ideological guard dogs enforcing orthodoxy, something I want no part of in the name of fair treatment for women, no way.  

People are allowed to be male and have journalistic impressions and to share them.  She's sounding defiant again, this is a fact.  And a truly bizarre one since she has no shot at this thing.  Crowley is allowed to be annoyed by that, I know I am but I cant be bullied with the sexist label into silence.  Threatening Crowley with name calling because you don't like what he says about a candidate for the highest office in the land - offends me.  It dilutes the power of real sexism, crying wolf like that.  I'm sorry, but that is how is sounds to me.

This faux-campaign as a conduit for personal resentments that have nothing to do with the substance of this campaign (I'm sorry these women have been burned by sexisn in their lives and that they carry anger about that. I have had those experiences too, but that is not Obama's fault and I am sick of him being demonized for someone else's emotional problems and pain, sick of any random man being punished for it), holding the Democratic party hostage, asking us all to patiently be in on the delusion while some sort of therapuetic scenario takes place only they are in on and are allowed to define, the perpetual, incessant touchiness over every syllable uttered, most of it fact - all of this in the middle of a Presidential campaign no less, not an encounter group.  Frankly, as a woman I am deeply embarrassed by the entire spectacle.  

It seems to me Hillary does her supporters a grave disservice by continuing to lead them on, refusing to allow them to begin the process of healing, to keep them in limbo with false hope and stoking resentments, both racial and gender oriented.  It's unbelievably selfish of her.  It's not just selfish to Democrats and the country, it is selfish to her supporters.  

And bizarre. I honestly do want her to remain a respectable figure (although I will never view her the same way again), but the more this goes on, the more she turns *herself* into a punchline, not the big bad meanies of the world, but herself.  The kids in my groups laugh at her constantly now and it makes me sad, she is doing this to herself and dragging all of these people down with her. Senator from New York is one of the most powerful positions in the world - millions of either gender would kill for it and will never have the chance ever. She has power, mansions and millions.

She's making me sick!

15 days until the primaries end and that's not "nearly over"?  Hell, just PA was longer than that...

I feel bad that I have lost so much respect for Sen. Clinton over the course of this campaign. I think there's a little piling on going on and I feel somewhat guilty that I can't summon more anger over the piling on. Although as Tammy notes, the practical need to not alienate supporters is a real concern.

But as to whether sports analogies make sense- well, the fact that the stakes are higher seems to strengthen Mike C.'s point. The cost to Sen. Clinton of staying in the race is much higher in practical terms than the cost to the Knicks of not benching the stars.

Hm. I thought it was a great analogy.  Just need to figure out a way to work in the Puerto Rico primary, Mike, and it's the best Stump post of 2008.

PS the stands are emptying out and just a few loud drunks are hanging back to yell at the refs, the visiting team, and whoever else will listen.

Geez, what is with all the NBA today?  Admittedly the NBA season is pretty much the only thing longer than this primary campaign, but still...

Anyway, who cares?  Let her do whatever she wants.  Obama is playing it exactly right by not playing that game anymore, and "getting ready for the playoffs," to play along with the sports analogy.  If that means an ugly but non-statistically significant loss or two at the end of the regular season, so be it.  

Ugh, hello, no stars? Renaldo Balkman aka "plastic man"? Come on brother, give a gamecock his due.

Hillary lost about 6 weeks ago. She's like the black knight from the Holy Grail: "It's only a flesh wound!"

Wandrey: excellent stuff.  

Michael Crowley-

I think the sports analogy can be extended in this way: in terms of the people not just observing or rooting, but those actually playing the game. For instance, those who play sports when they're young (or at least those who played sports when I was young, and I'm roughly Hilllary's age) often develop a sense of civility when it comes to losing or winning. They know when the game is over, even if, technically, there are still minutes on the clock. Which is why a team with an insurmountable lead late in the fourth quarter won't usually try to run up the score. It's just bad form.

Also, the members of a team who have fought a tough battle, but lost--lost to an insurmountable lead--are expected to take that loss graciously, even if there are still minutes on the clock. It would be bad form, for instance, to start antagonizing your opponent, to call him names, or to suggest that he won't win the championship series (from which your team has just been eliminated). To refuse to acknowledge the fact of defeat, to refuse to acknowledge it with civility and grace, to try, instead, to rally your supporters in the stands when the game is already lost, to claim that you would have had a better chance in the championship series, to try to undermine or belittle your opponent in public, well, this would only be a way to belittle yourself.

There is no one way to view every case, sometimes restraint is in order, sometimes not.  

Hanging on to a philosophy for the philosophy's sake is about ego and rigidity, not the law.

Knicks fan ...

Um, the Puerto Rico primary is the losing team hitting a three-pointer as time runs out to cut an eleven-point loss to an eight-point loss ...?

Thanks for that post, Wandreycer.

According to CNN, Obama only needs 116 more delegates to clinch.  Sounds pretty over to me.

Gallup Daily: Obama Opens Up 16-Point Lead, Biggest Yet

www.gallup.com/.../Gallup-Daily-Obama-Opens-16Point-Lead-Biggest-Yet.aspx

Obama -- 55%

Clinton -- 39%

Of course, "This Is Nowhere Near Over" for Hillary Clinton.  Tomorrow, when she finally and definitively loses the race for pledged delegates, her "nigger, nigger, nigger" whispering campaign really ramps up.  That's the campaign where she tries to persuade super-delegates that she is more electable because she is white.  Publicly, she will be repeating at every opportunity that only she can win "hard-working white voters" and simultaneously pushing the meme that she lost because she is the victim of misogyny.  She and her surrogates will be intimating that Obama is the ultimate source of that misogyny, both to cover the tracks of her race-baiting and to stoke gender resentment.  Gender and racial resentment are all that Hillary is about any more.  I'm sure that at the least she gives no thought at all to whether her efforts might hurt the party's chances in November, but I suspect that her real motivation is to burn down the house with us in it -- if she cannot be the Democratic president-elect in 2008, then no one will be.  I also suspect that the is utterly convinced of her victimhood and justifies herself to herself in this way.

Happily, the number of uncommitted super-delegates continues to melt and Obama continues to gain, up by 23 right now and by 190 delegates altogether.  Of the 218 uncommitted super-delegates, Hillary will now need more than 80% to overcome Obama's lead, even after taking into account the likely results in the races yet to be won.  Right now, it is looking like a net gain of 13 delegates for Hillary in the remaining races, which would give her 25 net in total for the races from WV through to the end, smack in the middle of the 20 to 30 range I estimated even before PA.  That means Obama needs only about 30 more super delegates to clinch.  He has picked up more than that since NC, so it should not be long.  However, I have every expectation that Hillary will continue her "nigger, nigger, nigger" campaign right through the convention, even if Obama already has a clear majority of pledged and super-delegates behind him

As soon as the November election is over, I look forward to going to work to defeat the execrable Hillary Clinton in 2012.  My hope is to start a PAC to spend the next three years gathering funds that can be used to back the candidate or candidates who look like they have the best chance to defeat her in a primary challenge.

Nice, Woody.

If I had any doubts that Michael Crowley doesn't waste all day thinking of ways to bash Hillary Clinton loooooooooooooong after the fact, this P.S. dispells them.  Except did the Knicks come close to .490?  

Wandrey. You are over-analyzing my comments to Crowley.  We agree on feminism and have noted this before.  We just read Crowley differently today.  Crowley didn't write "Oh, she's making outrageous claims today".  He opened with her "being defiant again", scolding her for being a certain way.  And even if you don't buy this as potentially sexist, how is she being defiant?  Defiant means you are resisting something.  The word "being" assigns that resistance to an identity trait rather than a mere act.  

There is gender policing going on here.  People are very eager to point out when race -baiting affects Obama, but not when the sexist language and standards impact Hillary.  This is how it is outside of presidential campaigns too.  Racism is less tolerated than sexism.  The Imus/ Rutgers women's bball team illustrated that.  It was defined as a race issue rather than a sexist issue.  

Obama has gender too (i.e., he is a male and men have gender), yet he often appears less enlightened on that issue.  His "sweetie" comments, desire to charm some women voters (maybe not you), sayiing Hillary is "nice enough" and today, showing chilavry by admonishing "hands off my wife." (instead, he might have kept it to "attacks on her are irrelevant and a distraction-- btw, Michelle can handle herself), just don't endear him to me.    

The presidency is a masculine institution and I applaud any women for trying to negotiate its gender terrain.  Obama doesn't have to negotiate this.  Obama may want to be post-race, but he is certainly not post-gender.  And bloggers here at TNR seem to be more receptive to race issues against Obama than they are to gender issues against Hillary.  I see them equally and will call them out accordingly.  In fact, I have done so.  I have given up, however, hoping for Obama's supporters to consider that gender penalizes Hillary to a similar degree as race does Obama.  

Finally, Crowley's dig at Hillary flies in the face of her conciliatory tone since NC/Indiana, but it does give guys like Roid another opportunity to spew Hillary hate.  Admittedly, I need to mourn Hillary's failure, but I can't do it here at TNR.  I gotta find that support elsewhere.  I will do so because there is no way I'll vote for a Republican and no way I'll stay home.  That's about as much Obama support as I can muster right now.  I'm sure more will come in time.

Wandrey and roid - I loved your posts.  Both of you, in your very different ways, have been diligently calling Hillary on all her narcissistic crap.  For which I offer my thanks.  A silver lining is that it has become obvious that the "dream ticket" would be a nightmare ticket and ain't gonna' happen.

Sorry, tammy, I don't see "white voters, hard-working voters" will not support Obama as being conciliatory in the least degree.  Forget Obama personally.  It is a blot on the party.  We will never succeed at uprooting gender bias in this culture or any culture by inciting racial bias.  I don't need Crowley to tell me how objectionable that is.  Nor am I describing the campaign that I think Hillary is running because I intensely dislike her -- it is part of why I dislike her so.  There has been plenty of reporting that behind the scenes Hillary has been making race-baiting arguments to super-delegates to dissuade them from supporting Obama.

It is a shame for the cause of gender equality that the first woman with a serious chance at the presidency is such a personally flawed individual.

Roid.  I don't know about the behind the scenes stuff you say Hillary is doing.  I doubt it though.  Maybe she is saying that she gets the white vote, but I wouldn't call pointing that out to super-delegates race-baiting.  I will give you this, G. Ferrraro set the reconciliation cause back today with her pathetic comments about not supoprting Obama.  If Hillary did something like this, I would completely detach.  Hillary rightfully distanced herself from these comments.

Finally, Roid, Hillary's presidential candidacy will be remembered as a positive thing for women.  It won't harm gender rights.  It's a historic accomplishment.  It will go down as "a woman came very, very close to securing the democractic nomination in 2008."  In 2012, no one will think it's outrageous that a woman is running for president.  The same will be true for an African-American. Thank God!!!!!  

TammyA-

You write: ". . .Crowley's dig at Hillary flies in the face of her conciliatory tone since NC/Indiana. . ."

Sorry, Tammy, but Hillary's claim today that she is ahead in the popular vote is anything but conciliatory. It is, in fact, simply beneath contempt. And would be so whether she were a man, a beefy transexual, or a hermaphrodite.

It is, at best, a distortion. At worst, an outright lie.

She is trying to factor in the votes from the Florida and Michigan contests, even though the Democratic Party did not approve them, none of the candidates campaigned there, and Obama took himself off the ballot in Michigan.

From the NY Times website, as of about 4:30pm Monday afternoon:

________________________________________________________________________________

[Obama's] advisers argue that Mrs. Clinton’s claim of a popular vote lead is intellectually dishonest -- and note that it echoes recent statements by none other than Karl Rove, President Bush’s former political adviser. . .

_______________________________________________________________________________

In short, it is the dishonesty of claims such as this that make Hillary worthy of derision.

Okay, tammy.  Perversely, you are probably right that having Hillary, a throwaway, lose the first serious shot by a woman candidate for president means that when a woman who is actually a viable comes along she will be able to win.  It would have been more of a setback if the first woman candidate were viable and had lost as Hillary has.  

Or, to put it another way, the first woman with the right stuff is going to look so good in comparison to Hillary Clinton that her chances will be much improved.

Out of curiosity, tammy, if you know, what will your opinion be if my prediction is correct and Hillary continues to "run" against Obama even after he has the backing of the absolute majority of pledged and super-delegates necessary for the nomination?

Even while we blog, Obama has continued to gain net super-delegates.

I think he actually needs only 18 more out of 214 uncommitted, about 8%.  Hillary, by contrast, would need about 197 out of that 214 or 92%.  At the present rate, Obama should rack up the necessary super-delegate votes by the end of the week (unless his win in Oregon opens a floodgate).  That means that by the time of the last contests on June 3, if not before, Obama will have the necessary 2,025 delegates to claim the nomination.

OK Tammy - I hear you.  

It just doesn't bother me when men call me sweetie - I like it for the most part, but context is everything.  If it's said sarcastically, that's something else, but he simply wasn't saying it that way.

That's just a personal thing.  I find that to be unrealistically touchy and just mean and dehumanizing towards men.  I'm not in to that at all.  I like men and maleness alot, I want them to be nothing but - bring on the chivalry, I love it. I cannot fathom being offended by such things, it feels so situational and convenient to this campaign,  Holding someone standing up for their wife against them?  That's just sad. I love women and femaleness too, but I do not privledge one over the other.  Jesus, men cannot win with you people.  Its just ridiculous. I adore them both, flaws and all, and the individuality of each.  I hope my sons are watching Obama, they have great gender role models as it is, thank God, but I am really pleased by the dignified way he carries himself, treats his wife nd daughters and his lack of macho nonsense - all without losing his maleness.  Bravo Obama.

I saw jourmalism in Crowley's comment, fair and square, no gender policing - do you think the 15 year old young women laughing at Hillary in my groups are gender policing?  Sexist? Hillary's behavior problems are REAL Tammy, hers alone.  I just see blind touchiness, ideological rigidity in even saying that.  

Again, how can a male journalist with legitimate beefs cover Hillary?  Without being attacked?  Jeez, talk about gender policing. Are people - men especially - allowed to have beefs with her?  She's a professional running for President, not in an group therapy session or a classroom or a romantic relationship.  Her professionalism is fair game, and if not - why?  That is so patronizing to me, sexist in and of itself.  Do not coddle me because I am a woman.  Judge the hell out of me for my work! And you want to tell me that women don't judge each other professionally? Oh my, I wish.

Tammy - please just remember, Hillary called Obama a talk show host, said he wasn't fit to be Commander in Chief, told the press she was dumping the kitchen sink on him after he had the audacity to work hard and win Iowa, that he had no career except one speech in 2002 and said "not that *I'M* aware of" when asked if he was a Muslim (there is only one reason for Hillary to have said that and that is to garner racist votes).  

Imagine if Obama had dared any such thing.  Oh, the drama. Please, the hysterical touchiness about the mostly innocuous retorts of Obama, while ignoring the unending insults of Hillary, strikes me as ridiculous and does not reflect well on women running for office at all - the "dish it out but can't take it" stereotype of women in professional settings, personified.

Again, you are a good soul Tammy and I am sorry to say this but: SAVE me from these excuse making, perma-complaining Hillary "feminists"!  In thier refusal to hold Hillary accountable and reduce her down to her gender, to blame a flawed but good man for the ills of their lives - they so embarrass me!!!

Ok. My date just left so I can blog again.  Roid, as soon as Obama has enough Super Ds to put him at 2025, the thing should be over.  By the way things look, that will happen shortly, could be after tomorrow nigt.  If Hillary does anything drastic, damaging, or doesn't lose with grace, then I'll cease defending her (I have already stopped volunteering and contributing $.  I'm detaching as it were).  I feel a solidarity with her in the mean time (but not with Ferraro right now).  I look forward to Sebelius, Napolitano and the like.  Even Obama's foreign policy advisor- Susan Rice-- impressed me tonight on CNN.  All of these potential female candidates now know more about how to wage a campaign for president: what not to do more than what to do.  More importantly, they have inspiration that the country may just be ready for them.

Wandrey, Obama can "stand by his woman" without the chivalry.  He should have let her speak more, defend herself-- during that interview.  But it doesn't really matter, I guess.  He's not going to lose any points being chivalrous and women-- like you-- love their dudes sticking up for them.  That's cool.  I just like to fight my own battles and I really, really, really want Michelle to adopt a more active policy role in an Obama admin.  I want her to be her own woman and it would really turn me on if Obama sat back and let it happen.

I no longer believe that Hillary Clinton is going to exit this race gracefully. She doesn't even care that she is starting to embarrass her (ditto McAuliffe and Wolfson) when she quotes these numbers.

But she worries me because I think she's going to drag Obama down with her if she can.

The figures she cites include the Michigan votes, giving none to Obama, and do not include the votes -- which are unknown -- of those caucus states that do not tally the popular vote total.

But she keeps insisting on these numbers. And though she knows as well as we do that the superdelegates know better, she has a lot of her supporters convinced otherwise. I can sympathize with the argument that it's not over 'til it's over, but to lie about her numbers and convince her supporters of their validity, makes me believe that she's not going to go quietly.

The hubris and narcissism of the Clintons is so powerful and destructive it makes me very nervous. Howard Dean and the superdelegates have got to stand up to her at some point very soon if she doesn't give this up. This cannot go to the convention. It will just get uglier and uglier if it does. And the division she has sowed will become cemented.

I hope I'm wrong.

Jeez. It's not like Barack was telling Michele to shut the hell up while he spoke, or she was a silent wallflower who just shrugged her shoulders. She spoke for herself just fine. They both were responding to the interviewer's question and Barack ended with "Lay off my wife." I think that his intent was not, in fact, to belittle her or be a knight in shining armor. I think that since she's his loved one, and was being smeared by the TN GOP, he wanted them to "lay off." And because she is his wife, he said "my wife." I've heard Michele Obama stick up for Barack a lot. I mean, A LOT. Is she an out-of-line sexist who should really let him speak for himself?

Today, by the way, HRC is on the stump touting an election analysis by KARL ROVE claiming she's the more electable Democrat. In case anyone was hoping she'd exit with grace.

Tammy said:

"I really, really, really want Michelle to adopt a more active policy role in an Obama admin.  I want her to be her own woman and it would really turn me on if Obama sat back and let it happen."

Ugh.  That's how we got into this mess in the first place, what with Bill giving Hillary "a more active policy role."  Let Obama appoint women to important positions.  Let's keep the nepotism out of it.  We don't need another debacle like the healthcare meltdown and the loss of the House caused by the poisonous cocktail of the president's professional life and marital life.  That cannot possibly be good for women.

Woody,

You were actually hoping that Hillary would exit with grace?  Never gonna happen.  Furthest thing from her mind.

Okay, this discussion of chivalry requires the always astute yet strangely humble musings of williamyard.

I am chivalrous. I hold doors for my girlfriend, offer her my coat on cold days, and defend her and otherwise go Obama on anyone who disses her.

Here's the thing, though: she's even more chivalrous toward me.  I have her to thank for my most recent promotion because she found my boss' failure to offer one unacceptable, and coached me through the ensuing confrontation. (Female boss, by the way, for those of you keeping score.)

If that isn't enough for you, she discovered a two-and-a-half-foot-long Western diamondback rattlesnake snoozing near my front door on Friday evening last and promptly beheaded it with a shovel. (My antipathy toward snakes far exceeds hers.)

My GF doesn't need me to defend her, nor I her, but it sure is nice to have someone in your corner 24/7. It's called having a relationship. If both parties aren't being chivalrous toward each other, one of them is a loser and the other is a fool, or both are both.

I haven't been following the Obama family melodrama but seems to me Obama was right to front the assholes who were taunting his woman, a woman who seems to have been acting mighty chivalrous toward her man over the last many months, based on how she's been criss-crossing the country catching stupid shit thrown his way. (Maybe Michelle was paying attention years ago when Hillary rushed to defend her husband during the Monica debacle.)

For the sake of argument, however, let's say Barack is being chivalrous and Michelle isn't. Heavens to Betsy--guess we better all vote for John McCain, and watch while he unchivalrously ships another twenty or fifty or hundred thousand kids to Iraq. That will teach that macho pig Barack Obama a lesson, won't it?

On chivalry and poisonous critters:

Last summer I returned from a vacation to find a tarantula on my bedroom floor. It would have been very nice if a chivalrous man (or woman for that matter) had been around to dispose of it for me.

Great post, williamyard.

Wandrey, I loved your posts. As someone who also thinks of myself as a feminist, I share your frustration with the more dug-in, grievance-driven members of the Clinton camp out there. They are making me want to reconsider my embrace of the term "feminist." (I say "out there" because I don't mean Tammy, who is eminently reasonable and makes a number of points I agree with.)

Thank you hemlock, that means alot to me that you support my thoughts on this - I watch in horror as these women suck the media oxygen out of the room on this, and I dont know a single woman who thinks that way.  I wish the Wa Po, etc would interview the millions of women out here who hold no truck with that nonsense.  And yes, Tammy is thoughtful and good, a  much more patient person than I will ever be!

PS William, if you read this - what a sweet post.  Chivalry is mutual.  

PPS I have no doubt that Michelle will be defining her own role, no one dares tell her what to do.  She's as smart as anyone I have ever seen (I saw her speak) and is qualified to do just about whatever she wants.  THAT is a powerful woman.

William. LOVE your g-friend!!!!!!!  I HATE snakes.  Hemlock- what happened to the spider?  Did you do the job yourself?  In ten years, or fewer, there will be no more remnants of Ferraro/Steinem feminism.  I hope, however, there will a more visible and timely version in its place.  Women are neither only villains or victims.  Things like unequal pay, domestic violence, sexual harassment, and misogyny still exist, but so do female CEOs, race car drivers, and girlfriends who can take out creepy critters.  I do not believe only a woman can "fix" the problems and celebrate the victories.  But you can't blame me or any other woman for wanting to see a female take the helm and give it a go.  Next time, I suppose.

Amen Tammy - I look forward to that day too.  

In the meantime, all hurt feelings and disappointment aside (not that I'm trying to rush that process), we're not doing too badly in the march towards equity with an African American nominee.  I truly hope that Hillary supporters can take that in, be magnanimous and even joyful about that miracle.  It's a beautiful thing.  I have been disappointed so far in seeing that in Hillary people.  So much resentment can blind you, I know it does me.

Black folks, to put it mildly, haven't exactly had a picnic in the park in this country either - the ranks of CEO's and other positions of real financial and political power aren't exactly brimming over with black folk of either gender.   We've had less than a handful of black Senators in our entire history.  One black woman.  Disgraceful.

Check out the percentages of people stating openly that they won't vote for a black person in this campaign.  Pretty blatant, pretty grim.

Not to mention the impossibility of a woman ever being able to being her wife to the inauguration, or a man his husband.  There's a long way to go all over.  But we're making progress, slowly but surely.

Women and people of color still need to be twice and good to break even - that's just the way it is.  It's not like Barack Obama is just some black guy.  

When we get a female candidate that's twice as good all on her own merits, and that's what it will take (and from the many miraculous young women I know, I have no doubt she's out there),  I bet she will be able to pull it off all on her own, no husband's last name, no excuses, just an outstanding human being.  

And I'll be cheering loudly along with you.

Amen Wandrey.  In fact the data show African Americans are slipping behind in this recent economy.  We see it at the university level too and it's depressing.  Hopefully, Obama can help reverse trends for all types of inequities.  I don't bestow him sole responsibility to do so or any extraordinary powers, but he'll be a great champion of such rights and will secure some lesgilative and symbolic accomplishments.  

Heads up, LR's on the war path again about the CA ruling.  Thankfully, others responded quickly to his hyperbole.

Oh dear - I'm out of that one Tammy, I cannot keep my cool and won't lower myself again.  You are so much more suited to that one than I am.  I just lose it and you do not.  I hand the torch to you and admit my failure in this way!

Wandrey and Tammy: I'm also optimistic about the chances of a woman becoming president in the not-too-distant future. It may not happen in the next few election cycles, but I don't think it'll take generations either, as some women are predicting. About the spider, TAmmy, I did actually have a neighbor, thank god, who is a huge lover of all living things (plants, animals, insects) and I dragged him over to my place. He caught it and let it go in a nearby park. I'm intensely arachnophobic with large spiders (not small ones), but had twinges of shame that I was conforming to the "helpless girl" stereotype. So williamyard's post was very, very sweet to read.