In a campaign where demographics seem to be destiny, one of the most striking factors is the segregation of voters by age. In state after state, older voters have formed a core constituency for Mrs. Clinton, who is 60, while younger voters have coalesced around Mr. Obama, who is 46. Age has been one of the most consistent indicators of how someone might vote — more than sex, more than income, more than education. Only race is a stronger predictor of voting than age, and then only if a voter is black, not if he or she is white. Age is likely to play a particularly strong role in the Democratic primary Tuesday in Pennsylvania. The outmigration of young people has left the state with the second-highest proportion of people over 65 in the country, after Florida. Fifty-eight percent of registered Democrats are older than 45, a consistent dividing line in the race. ...According to exit polls conducted by Edison/Mitofsky in the states that have voted so far, 57 percent of voters 65 and older have supported Mrs. Clinton and 36 percent have supported Mr. Obama. Most of the Clinton voters say they want a candidate with experience. Of voters age 30 and younger, 59 percent have supported Mr. Obama and 38 percent have supported Mrs. Clinton. Most of Mr. Obama’s supporters say they want change. ...“If I was in my 20s, maybe I’d support Obama,” said Germaine Donahue, 64, who lives in Sullivan County, in northeastern Pennsylvania, and helps run a cleaning service. “But life tempers you. I’m with Hillary.”
]]>HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro, one of her fundraisers and the 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate, for saying that Barack Obama "would not be in this position" if he were white instead of black.
...Last week, Ferraro told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif.: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
She also faulted a "very sexist media" in the historic race between a man bidding to be the first black president and a former first lady seeking to become the first female president.
In the AP interview, Clinton said, "I do not agree with that," and later added, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters _ on both sides, because we both have this experience _ say things that kind of veer off into the personal."
...Obama called Ferraro's comments "patently absurd."
"I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd," he told the Allentown Morning Call.
Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Ferraro should be removed from her position with the Clinton campaign because of her comments.
"The bottom line is this, when you wink and nod at offensive statements, you're really sending a signal to your supporters that anything goes," Axelrod said in a conference call with reporters.
I've had a lot of trouble knowing where to lend my support for this election, mostly due to hype and media coverage. It's been obvious to me that much of the negative air around Clinton is inspired by the stereotype of a power-hungry bitch, using her husband's career as a stepping stone -- this stereotype is propagated largely by the media and voters who fail to recognize the sexist slant ingrained into where we get our information. Obama I've had issues with because of his obvious marketing toward the youth and speeches that seem to pray on emotional appeal. At a glance, it's hard to see past the two Democrats' outer-images, and I refuse to have my vote swayed by either of these.
The Daily Kos has this in common with me. In her blog entry, she decides where to place her vote based on senate voting records, meticulously going through the Library of Congress's website and reading each one. If you don't feel like doing the same, she summarizes the key points quite well.
I suggest all undecided voters check this out.
To make it perfectly clear, I have not yet personally endorsed any candidate yet for the 2008 presidential election. The only candidate that I feel speaks my views is Mike Gravel, but he is the absolute least popular contender for the Democratic nomination. Being a Democrat myself, I've been trying to figure out whom I'd rather have in office -- Barak or Hillary -- but haven't devoted myself to either yet. I find it exciting that the top two contenders for the nom represent minority demographics that many people believe will never hold office in the United States. I find it even more interesting that, although black men constantly portrayed by the media as gang members and uneducated lowlifes, Obama undoubtedly gets the better press over Clinton.
Why do people hate Hillary so much? I've been trying to wrap my brain around it for months now, and, despite her supposed flaws, I have to believe that the bad press is 90% due to the media and society's interpretations of something, not purely policy.
In a recent speech, Obama mentioned something that I think might contribute a lot to the media's distrust of Hillary: "I know it is tempting — after another presidency by a man named George Bush — to simply turn back the clock, and to build a bridge back to the 20th century,"
But perhaps this is exactly it. It's no debate that G. W. is unpopular, and it's not much of a question of whether or not he would have a career in politics were it not for daddy. And now that Obama mentions it, Hillary is much in the same position. Although she had a career and aspirations separate from her husband's (in fact, that is how they met), I also have little question as to whether or not she would have become senator were she not first First Lady. Much like Bush, her popularity without a doubt hinges on someone else's career.
Would she have accomplished much without her marriage to provide her with such connections? Who knows. But the point is that she definitely, undoubtedly has a career today because of it.
Maybe the idea of the family dynasty is what is subconsciously playing into many Democrats' lack of support for Hillary. After all, seeing as how our current president is in office largely due to his father, it doesn't seem out-of-line to question someone's experience if a former president is legally related to them.
But Bush still got into office with not nearly as much bad press as Hillary. I don't think it's unfair to cite sexism as a contributed to Hillary's poor media image. Women who pursue high positions are often dismissed as bitchy and power-hungry, and you'd have to be kidding if you said the negative media surrounding Hillary wasn't making her out to be just that.
But there is opposition to this: Well, if the media is being blatantly sexist, where's the racism against Obama?
This is where my point comes in -- perhaps Hillary is more succeptible to being labeled as power-hungry because of the similarity between the Bush dynasty and the Clinton dynasty. Both let two terms pass before the family re-entered the presidential scene. It's also easy to call a woman power-hungry when she's running for office as the wife of a former very successful president.
Would I vote for Hillary? I have no idea. I'm merely trying to differentiate bad press from sexist press and still waiting for Obama to say something to make me believe he has the experience necessary for being a president. The fact is, I like neither Clinton nor Obama, and am greatly disheartened to learn that the other, safer looking hopefuls Kucinich and Edwards have both dropped out. My lack of certainty with either of the candidates has led me to even start considering those on the Republican bench -- McCain has some solid ideas, I hear.
Since Michigan fucked itself out of the primaries, I didn't vote, and now I suppose I resign for the rest of the public to make the decision for me. Hopefully I'll have waded through this all by election day.