doesn't fit with the content of the story.

While you might see it as a slur - judging by the supplied quote it is not sexist.

Or is all criticism of Hillary sexist in its nature?

The thing is that Hillary and Obama have essentially different messages and different places in this race: Obama is the outsider while Hillary is the insider, Obama trades on "Unity" while Hillary trades on appealing to one segment of the Democratic base - while irritating the rest of the Democratic base.

Obama managed to win with the rules as they are by running an effective campaign, Hillary wants to win by changing the rules in her favour because she, and her supporters feel she deserves it after years of being mistreated - sort of "The press has treat you like shit for years, have the presidency as a consolation prize."

Obama has centred his campaign on him being better than Hillary, Hillary has outright stated that McCain - the opposing party's candidate with a totally different set of policies - would be better than Obama.

Hillary has throughout the campaign been identified with race baiting and outright lying. Her campaign started off with claiming that Obama's supporters are cultists, naive and downring stupid - while slamming them for being elitists because Obama's campaign happens to have attracted the educated vote.

Hillary's campaign has played up "Toughness" in her foreign policy while Obama's has played up approachability.

While Hillary has outright blamed illegal aliens for stealing American jobs, Obama has stated that that was scapegoating, and not the sort of thing that will lead to any solutions.

On every issue where Hillary has striven to hit the hot button in a bid to stop people thinking about the issues, Obama has tried to appeal to people to think. Where Hillary made gender front and centre to her campaign, Obama made hope front and centre to his.

There is a reason why it took SC for Obama to win the black vote - and it wasn't questions over his viability. Hillary outright offended the black vote and has done nothing to try and win it back.

The two would not campaign well together - because what is good in Obama's campaign, what he has done in his campaign, has been to appeal to people's "Nobler instincts."

That is not to say that Obama hasn't attracted some of the uglier side of humanity - some of the following Obama has gained has been because he is not Hillary Clinton and there is nothing more that can be said of that.

But, in the end, his argument to be made to the supers will not be "I am a black man" it will be "I lead in almost every metric and I have attained that lead without asking you to change the rules for me." Hillary's argument on the other hand will be "Uneducated white blue collar voters won't vote for a black man."

During this campaign the argument has been made that sexism in America is more rife than racism, that Hillary has been unfairly treated by the press, that the caucus system is unfair and that the rules Clinton agreed to before the race started should be changed for Michigan and Florida.

This is not the "nobler" sentiment that voters seek, this is asking for pity, and for moving the goal posts. That this is being asked for by the candidate who claims to be "tougher" speaks volumes for how Hillary cannot beat McCain.

So while Obama has been no saint in this election, and while he is by no means perfect, when Kennedy speaks of "noble", unless he says something worse after it, he is correct.

I just looked it up.

I still don't see anything sexist, or for that matter untrue as to what Kennedy said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/05/09/2008-05-09_as_obama_gains_superdelegates_ted_kenned.html

Mainly due to the sheer stupidity of the Hillary supporters that call Obama an "Empty shirt" and like to blame the black vote for you know, excercising their rights and voting for the candidate they happen to prefer...

Off and on topic but

Just what I take from a lot of Hillary's supporters' arguments

If Hillary really could take McCain at all this election hasn't demonstrated as much. If she could have taken McCain she hasn't demonstrated it here. She couldn't beat someone who, if you believe her supporters, is a political lightweight whose main asset is the colour of his skin.

She couldn't get the press on her side when Rupert Murdoch, one of the biggest players in the media, one of the guys who is getting frighteningly close to owning a media monopoly, was one of the people raising funds for her. If there was going to be a bias it was going to be on her side, but she kept on letting slip the precise sorts of comments and errors that the shallow American media finds so entertaining.

And remember, the first votes she lost? Not the black vote. The young educated vote. What we saw in her was long before race even became an issue here - we saw someone who was more passionate about the impact of people fucking in computer games than the impact of people dying in the real world.

And lets face facts here - if you are studying or have a degree there is a far greater chance of you not being a dummy than if you are a highschool dropout. You might call that elitism, but then I call equating white and uneducated with hard working racism.

So please tell me, without resorting to "Obama suksors" or grade school taunts what makes you think she is the candidate who can win?

-- Person

So you want to blackmail America into being nice to you?

And you see this as being non-contemptable how?

I have read your various screeds and it isn't like you have any room to speak.