« Where's The Gratitude? | Main | Bad News »

March 25, 2008

Comments

Whoa, deja vu.

In 1988, as a high school junior, I got a letter to the editor published in my local paper (The TAB, Newton, Mass) opining that racism wouldn't stop Jesse Jackson from getting elected, but *fear* of racism might.

Was I right then? If I was wrong then, are you right now? I'm not sure. My gut has been telling me the same thing all my life.

i firmly believe a President Obama would be such a massive step forward for this country that, unless he's a total failure(and judging by who he's following, as long as Obama can tie his shoes without his VP's help he'll look like a genius) it will be a game-changing event. all other potential presidents AFTER Obama will have to be better, different than anything we've known before.

that's one of the reasons i think Hillary is fighting so hard. she knows that if she loses to Obama, he'll be the President(i have less--almost none, really--fear about him beating McCain), and candidates like her will look even more hackneyed and ossified than they do now.

I think the problem for Obama is that he is now suspected not to be a true believer in the national religion: the worship of America (which is what much, though not all of US Christianity is really all about, from the 'shining city on the hill' onwards). Even though he does not share Wright's views, he does not regard them with the horror of a true USA devotee as blasphemous. I don't think it's so much his skin colour as whether the electorate can accept a leader who does not believe (or pretend very carefully to believe) that the US is the most wonderful country that has ever existed and is an eternal moral inspiration to all.

Good post publius. I’m not sure how much I agree with your premise – but it certainly sounds plausible. I’ll join with you here: One reason I’m considering supporting Obama is specifically because he is black.

Very much agreed here about Obama and race. I would gladly support a candidate of any race with his views, assuming the rest of the field was the same or comparable to what it is in reality. But the fact that he's black is a bonus, to me.

And yes, I think you're right on about the fear in decent older white people that the rest of the country's still too messed up to give a black man a real chance at the presidency.

To me, people saying that they're afraid of other people's racism is just an excuse for their own deeply internalized racism.

Sure, they may not be the kind of racists who go around using the N-word.

But one of my (black) professors told me a story yesterday about a woman in central PA. She was complaining to him that her coworkers used the N-word all the time when the person in question hadn't even done anything wrong. However, if the N in question had done something wrong, she saw nothing wrong with using the N-word.

Anyway, I thoroughly agree with you that the best way to prove 'em wrong is to elect one. I've said it a million times--I refuse to cede one inch of this country to the racists.

Sarah J, it is sometimes the case that people are projecting their own racism onto others, but not always. Mom's a case in point, with a history of genuine constructive action to break down racial and other barriers in education-related stuff she's been involved in. (I note that she's an Obama supporter too.) When she says that she thinks there may be too many racists in denial still out there, she's talking on the basis of her experience trying to persuade people to be simply fair about access to after-school programs and like that.

You really need to look both at who's making the complaint and what specific complaint they're making. "This is what happened to me when I worked to provide a service without racial basis, and the kinds of bigotry I encountered, and what we were able to do about it and what we couldn't fix" is very different from "Oh, well, sure, he talks pretty, but you know how they are when push comes to shove, and besides, even though I'm all willing to have him, you just know other folks aren't as enlightened as I am."

Addendum: It also matters a lot what the person commenting on others' racism proposes to do next. Someone who says "...so I support these steps to address the fears they cite in public and to draw out some of the others that stay hidden so that we can be honest about it" is probably not covering up their own racism, while someone who says "...so even though he's a very clean-cut well-spoken dude, we should just get him to defer his campaign and let the status quo prevail, because it'd just be a lot of fuss and bother" may well be. Using others' racism as an excuse for inaction is much more likely to be an act of self-protection than taking it as a challenge to confront and improve as far as possible.

In Social Science we think of two types of racism: eplicit and implicit. Explicit racists believe minorities are not to be trusted, etc. They are what most people think of as racists. By contrast, implicit racists believe minorities are just as trustworthy. However, what makes them racist is that, other things being equal, they are a lot more likely to find any particular minority person to be untrustworthy than a similar white person.

Implicit racism is a big problem. Suppose you are one of these older whites from Kentucky, and you just can't trust Obama. This could be because of your implicit racism, but it could also be because of something specific to Obama that has nothing to do with the color of his skin. Who knows? Statistically it is possible to establish that certain groups of voters are racist, but on an individual basis it is impossible.

Publius,

This is a question with which I've been grappling since New Hampshire, and I certainly think that there's much to what you write.

But I'd like set it within a broader argument - to wit, that what older voters fear most is change. The older we get, the more comfort we find in the reassuringly familiar. What I prefer about this formulation is that it accounts not just for the skepticism with which Obama is regarded by older voters, but also for the depth of their affection for Hillary - it's a mistake to view that preference solely as a function of their views of Obama.

The fear of change (or the comfort of the familiar) functions in three ways. The first is the one which you highlight above. Obama's candidacy is premised on the notion that racial views can change; most older voters are skeptical of the possibility for broad-scale change even when their own individual views have evolved. The second relates to Obama's rhetorical posture. The man is running as the voice of a rising generation, as a candidate who can transform the very structure of politics. Most older citizens regard those promises not only with skepticism, but also with a certain degree of fear - Obama is promising to destabilize the settled and familiar, and to empower a young cohort that has never wielded significant political influence. Hardly promises likely to appeal to seniors. And the third way in which this dynamic functions is in the powerful appeal that Hillary Clinton exerts. Older voters may have regarded her with skepticism when she first burst upon the national stage, a living embodiment of second-wave feminism, but over the past two decades the Clintons have become a familiar feature of political life. Seniors know Hillary. They're comfortable with her. They don't know the new guy. And even if they did, many of these voters came of age while the Democratic machines were alive and well. They're used to voting down the line. They exhibit far greater party loyalty. And they almost always back the establishment candidate.

When I think of old revolutionaries, the ones who come to mind are those stuck fighting the struggles of decades past - the woman who stands on the streetcorner, handing out CP-USA fliers; the old man who joins his friends at Workman's Circle meetings; even the Birchers, still raving about flouridation. For them, these struggles have become the comfortable and familiar. But new causes and new leaders tend to be less popular. I have trouble thinking of an insurgent or transformative candidate who was able to appeal to older voters outside of his own community. So Obama wins among older black voters by enormous margins, just as old Catholics turned out for Kennedy.

For the curious, here's how Kennedy fared against Nixon in California in 1960:

Ages 21-29: Kennedy 60%, Nixon 37%

Age 60+: Kennedy 41%, Nixon 55%

Also worth noting that Kennedy did better among both Democrats and Republicans at the younger end of the spectrum than among older voters, and that the reverse held true for Nixon - who garnered a higher percentage among older voters of both parties than among younger ones.

So there's nothing new here. Obama is running on a message of change, and that's a message that seniors have always been loath to embrace. But it's also worth noting that they're among the least likely of all Democratic voters to defect in the general election - even the anti-Catholicism that was so embedded in the American consciousness at mid-century resulted in Kennedy losing just 20% of 60+ CA Democratic voters to Nixon - losses largely offset by his greater appeal among younger voters. In the intervening years, senior citizens have grown progressively more Democratic - in 1960 in CA, they were evenly split between the parties. So the bottom line is that this poses (and will continue to pose) a major challenge for Obama in the primary, but for all the media attention to the issue, is unlikely to pose too substantial a problem for the general election. (Recall, if you will, the endless succession of stories about how conflicted black women voters were in the primary - and that, by and large, they've ended up voting for Obama at higher rates than any other demographic group, including black men.)

I think a couple of things about this:

1. There are a lot of folks who aren't afraid of race so much as difference. Obama's early strength came from the fact that he seemed different only in one way: skin color. Other than that, you couldn't possibly find anyone who sounded more American. That's why the Neanderthal right tried to play up the Barack HUSSEIN Obama stuff. And that's why the "Jeremiah Wright-black-liberation-church" stuff has the potential to be so damaging amongst the people who need to take that leap to vote for Obama. Because it fuels the suspicion that he really is far more different than they had suspected. (Which, based on both his global background and his formative years in the culture of community organizing, is probably true. And a good, no, wonderful, thing.)

2. There is a subtle form of discrimination that is not only unspoken but that people themselves are unaware of. For example, I find in speaking to the older people in my family, there's something about Tiger Woods that rubs them the wrong way. They would deny it has anything to do with race -- and I believe they truly don't think it does. But I suspect part of it may. They are, for example, more likely to believe Roger Clemens than Barry Bonds, where -- from my standpoint -- both of them are lying through their teeth. I think part of that may be racial, too.

Can this be overcome? I think so, and if we don't try, it never will. Obama is a truly extraordinary individual with profound gifts: he might just pull it off. Given the enormous stakes of this election, if Clinton were a stronger candidate, there might be a better argument not to take the risk. But she isn't.

I support Obama, and I'm proud to do so. But there's no doubt that he's going to have to thread a very fine needle -- and we're going to need a little good luck, too.

publius: good post.

FlyOnTneWall: welcome. ;)

it's not just race. many are convinced that obama is muslim. and there is no social stigma attached towards hating on muslims for being muslims. zero.

Since we're going totally anecdotal here, a co-worker of mine, whom I think I mentioned a month or so ago on another thread, is a highly partisan and active Democrat from Northeast Philly. He is supporting Clinton, if only in the primary, for the very reason that he believes there are too many racists out there, particularly in PA, and more particularly in NE Phila - lifelong Dem, pick-up truck-driving union members who would vote for McCain before a black man. I'm sure there are some people like that, but I wonder how many. And screw 'em, anyway.

People in power have been pitting poor whites against blacks ever since the end of Reconstruction. It has worked. The poor need to work together, no matter what skin color.

Obama needs a speech that finds a way to make those Democrats who are most fearful that they will suffer from affirmative programs for blacks feel comfortable with him. He needs to let them know that he is for all of the poor and downtrodden, no matter what their color, that they will not suffer because a man who happens to have an African father is President.

Wait, let me see if I've got this straight. So this older generation of whites aren't racists, it's just that they think that non-whites are racists. So, in effect, they're pre-judging people of a different race as an entire group, rather than individually, and doing so on the basis of their race.

Man, I know there's a word for that... If I could just somehow come up with it!

One reason, then, that I’m supporting Obama is to purge these doubts once and for all. In fact, I’ll say it clearly enough for Mickey Kaus to hear – one reason I’m supporting Barack Obama is because he’s black. Fortunately, I was either non-existent or playing Atari (mostly Q-Bert) through much of the 70s and 80s. Thus, the term “identity politics” instills exactly zero-point-zero amount of fear in me.

Aha! But Q*Bert wasn't an Atari game, it was from Gottlieb, therefore your entire premise is wrong!

:)

Good post, though.

Good post, pub, but I think a lot of important points are brought up by commentors.

To me, people saying that they're afraid of other people's racism is just an excuse for their own deeply internalized racism.

This rings true to me. Some people (like my father) admit it and some don't. It's the aforementioned implicit racism along with the fear of change which are buoying HRC to the extent she is being done. I've heard every rationalization there is about why Obama shouldn't be nominated, and not a one really holds water. It's racism, the deep, unexamined, implicit kind.

tgirsch, are you purposely misreading the post? It's about older white people saying that they themselves are not racist, but that they nevertheless assume that a black person won't get elected because other white people are racist.....

That may be racist too, in some literal-minded sense, but it's certainly not the same as saying that they think non-white people are racist. Nothing at all is being said in the post about whether they or anyone else think non-white people are racist.

It's entirely possible that I misread him, but to me, this:

While they may have shed the more grotesque prejudices of the era, it’s harder to shake the perception carved into their brains from a young age that the white community thinks of blacks as second class citizens. In other words, their firsthand experience with collective, systemic racism makes Obama seem far more risky.

Doesn't seem like he's talking about a simple worry about what other whites may think. I think Sarah J hits it on the head.

Although on third reading, perhaps that's precisely what he's talking about...

My anecdotes conform to this theory. My mom is a committed Dem who happens to have a distaste for Hillary Clinton, and she even volunteered for Jesse Jackson in 84, so I figured she'd be aboard the Obama bandwagon. When I first talked to her about it, though, she was irate that the Democrats would be throwing the election away by nominating a black guy who would surely motivate the people to turn out in unprecedented numbers to defeat him. She also made specific reference to having grown up under segregation to defend this view. (I talked her into voting for Obama, in the end.)

I don't disagree with the premise of this post, Publius, but speaking only for myself, you have made me stop and think why I'm voting for Barack Obama.

I'm a little surprised and even impressed with myself, he said impressively, that race is NOT among the chief reasons (white, baby boomer male here), despite a great big yippie! at the prospect of a black President.

Obama is the best candidate on the issues, to my mind, and more intangibly, he is the right individual for the country at this time.

His individual qualities compelled me to vote for him (not without a little help from Hilzoyean brow-beating ;) of the gentlest sort, of course, but let's give credit where is due. It's not like I don't present my brow here almost every day for beating).

I'll pause here and contradict myself, because I really never know what I think until I look up and stare at the cursor, and admit that, yes, part of the reason he is the right individual for right now is because it is just time, long past, but there is nothing so convincing as "right now, today" for a majority of Americans to step up and elect a black President.

It would be great to have a female President as well, but Hillary is just not the one. Joe Lieberman doesn't get my vote. Clarence Thomas, should he run, wouldn't get my vote, and neither would Al Sharpton.

John McCain wouldn't get my vote even if he woke up one morning touring Baghdad in the body of Shirley Chisholm.

Mickey Kaus wouldn't get my vote because he is in the unfortunate position of being Mickey Kaus, and that's no one's fault but his own.

Now, I'm worried.

The big test for America will come if Barack Obama, the individual, has some sort of Shakespearean downfall as President.

Will some in America decide to generalize from the particulars of his individual downfall and conclude that, well, see what happens? You know, the same people who gave Richard Nixon the simple credit for being an individual disaster and there would be no negative conclusions drawn about any other white individual who followed.

Will the black community take such a scenario and withdraw (justifiably) into a another sullen interlude?

The real test for America will come if Obama fails as President.

If another black candidate emerges soon after and wins the Presidency on the strength of HIS or HER own individual qualities, then we're over the hump.

John Thullen -- sheesh, contingency upon contingency, raising the bar notch after notch....

Come back down to earth, and 3/25/08, and take it one step at a time!

John:

I agree about the personal downfall. It reminds me of the Carl T. Rowan quote:

A minority group has "arrived" only when it has the right to produce some fools and scoundrels without the entire group paying for it.

Of course, this isn't to say I think Obama is either a fool or a scoundrel (I don't), but you get the point.

Is (relative newbie) "JanieM" really taking John Thullen seriously?

It's going to be a fun ride, ladies and gentlemen.

You may be right. And our ever irresponsible and shallow media just helps in this skepticism by the medias obsession with and shallow approach to race and Obama.
But, I also feel there is another reason as well.
Older voters as well as blue collar ones tend to be very brand name loyal. They are the less likely to try the new.
Both groups have taken massive hits with health care and economic worries. Because of Bill's track record with the economy in the 90s, even if they don't care for Hillary, they see it as Bill being there to fix it. So, the fear of the new with Obama makes them even more skeptical.
Look at all the older people who are Obama supporters who say it was their kids who finally convinced them to believe in Obama and his ability.
That says they liked Obama but, needed some help to take the step.

Is (relative oldbie?) dr ngo taking a post that starts with "sheesh" seriously?

It's already a fun ride, boys and girls.

The term you're looking for is "Oldies But Goodies."

Sheesh.

Is the correct formatting "oldbie" or "oldie"? Or does "oldie" have implications of calendar age as opposed to time-spent-hanging-around-this-blog? If so, is "oldie" the term of respect while "oldbie" is the term implying "you regard this blog as your own personal online soap opera"?

"This is the story of three sisters, Moe Lane, Katherine, and Von. These are the Moes, and these are the Katherines, and these are the Vons, and this is Soap."

Confused? You won't be after this episode of "Soap"!

JanieM.:

I'm not sure "setting the bar" is the right metaphor.

But I'll run with it anyway.

I think Obama can handle the metaphorical bar no matter where it's set.

It's America that needs to decide whether it wants to limbo or do the high jump.

And then realize that the bar was just a state of mind.

Dr. Ngo:

Thank you, I think. ;)

You say yges, I say ngo.

"Sheesh" is a state of mind.

And if it's Texas, I'm moving to another state, despite Publius and McManus.

I've made this argument, that America is too racist a country to elect a black man president, here in the past. I do think if Barak can win it will prove America better than I expected.

It is kinda late for you to be bringing up this argument now though Publius. Whether or not Barak has any chance of winning we still have to support him the best we can. There isn't really any alternative.

So you should really think about whether you are being defeatist or not when you bring up this kind of electibility issue at this point.

tgirsch, there are nuances of experience and attitude even among white people. I grew up in a world so uniformly Italian(-American) Catholic that I was in high school before I realized there were Irish Catholics too…. ;)

Gowing up in a context that's racist (even if more covertly, as in the small northern town where I grew up) shapes everyone's experiences and assumptions, not just the experiences and assumptions of black people. Older white people who grew up in that world (I won't even try to address the complexities of how things have changed, and how they haven't) imbibed a certain cultural context, and even those of us who have worked to shed our own early and subtly inculcated racism remember that context vividly, and make guesses about what other people's attitudes are 40 years later.

Example not directly related to race: My mother, who rebelled against her rural Baptist upbringing to marry an Italian Catholic, still calls certain names "American" names. (Her great-granddaughters are the 5th generation of Americans in our line with our last name, but there’s a part of her into which that fact will never really sink.) She was telling me about one of her doctors, who has one of those names you can't spell or pronounce (from India, I believe), and I told her she ought to have some sympathy for him; after all, look at her own name... She did get it, though I don't think she quite gets it deep down about race and who's really "American."

2nd example not directly related to race: I grew up among Italian Catholics (and a handful of Baptists). No black people. No Protestants, except my mother and her mother, no Jews. No Asians. But at least I knew black people and Asians and Presbyterians and Methodists etc. existed. The people that I didn’t know existed during all my growing up years were gay people. And it turned out: I am gay myself.

I'll set religion aside because for me at least it seems to work differently. But in both the other cases -- race and sexuality -- I can never be the person I might have been, or have the experience of life I might have had, if I had grown up in a different time and place. I grew up separate from black people, in a world that set them apart as inferior. I grew up separate from gay people, in a world that considered them so abhorrent that they couldn’t even be named. I think I’ve done okay at coming through to a place where I’m not racist or homophobic, but race and sexuality are still issues for me in a way that they simply are not, at least not as deeply, not in as internalized a way, and not with the same depth of difficulty, for my (college age) children and their friends. This is another way of describing what I understand publius’s post to be about.

I changed the 'isms in the quotes. Not because I disagree with what is said, au contraire, but because it is nice to test these explanations in uncharted waters. Personally I think that anybody who would vote McCain over the democratic nominee (whomever that will be) should not be allowed to call himself or herself progressive and/or democrat.

In Social Science we think of two types of sexism: eplicit and implicit. Explicit sexists believe women are not to be trusted with bit responsibilities, etc. They are what most people think of as sexists. By contrast, implicit sexists believe women are just as trustworthy. However, what makes them sexist is that, other things being equal, they are a lot more likely to find any particular woman to be untrustworthy than a similar male.

Implicit sexism is a big problem. Suppose you are one of these older men from Kentucky, and you just can't trust HRC. This could be because of your implicit sexism, but it could also be because of something specific to HRC that has nothing to do with her gender. Who knows? Statistically it is possible to establish that certain groups of voters are sexist, but on an individual basis it is impossible.

There are a lot of folks who aren't afraid of gender so much as difference. Obama's early strength came from the fact that he seemed different only in one way: skin color. Other than that, you couldn't possibly find anyone who sounded more male.
[cut]
There is a subtle form of discrimination that is not only unspoken but that people themselves are unaware of. For example, I find in speaking to the older people in my family, there's something about Tiger Woods that rubs them the wrong way. They would deny it has anything to do with race -- and I believe they truly don't think it does. But I suspect part of it may.

It would be great to have a female President as well, but Hillary is just not the one.

"Is (relative oldbie?) dr ngo taking a post that starts with "sheesh" seriously?

Speaking as a sometime professional editor, I would suggest that, in fact, "sheesh" did not convey any particular signal that clearly demonstrated intended lack of seriousness in what followed, and that lack of such reading by a reader is not, in fact, the reader's fault.

"Sheesh" more typically expresses exasperation, rather than signifying "I do not mean what follows, I am making a joke."

FWIW.

I don't get worried until "sheesh" is followed by a "shoosh".

dutchmarbel:

I'm tickled by your experiment in substitution and inversion. But why limit yourself to Never certain's post, and squander the parlor trick on a commenter? Let's apply similar logic to Publius' original post.

Publius' premise is that an observed disparity - older voters support Hillary at a far greater rate than the general electorate - requires an explanation. Publius posits that it may be a manifestation of perceived societal racism; I've suggested that it stems from a preference among older voters for stability (experience, if you will) over change. If you wish to invert the original question, you might as easily note that young voters vote for Obama at markedly higher rates than the electorate, and that it is their behavior and not that of senior citizens which is aberrant and therefore requires an explanation. Perhaps, you might posit, young people are far more likely to see sexism as an insurmountable hurdle than older voters.

I jest. But I do so in the service of a serious point. Too often, our discussions of the effects of racism, sexism, and other pernicious constructs take place on an abstracted plane, divorced from actual behavior. In your post, you correctly note that sexism is a challenge that female candidates, however qualified, are still forced to confront. But unlike Publius' post, your exploration of discrimination didn't spring from an anomolous observation requiring explanation. As such, your thesis is not subject to testing, validation, or rejection. We can offer anecdotes in support or in opposition to the notion that gender is the key obstacle facing Hillary. But until it's grounded in a more concrete claim, it remains dangerously amorphous.

hilzoy: Why, thank you. I decided it was high time I stopped free-loading by merely reading, and started posting my own reactions when the spirit so moved me. Nice to be welcomed.

Time America had a black president; time, time and time, a woman president; but neither Obama or Clinton are worth losing the race to McCain. Other his being stupid, senile and corrupt; McCain would assure a 7 to 2 right wing majority on the supremes for one, maybe two generations. The question is how to win not who. This 'progressive' crap ain't going carry Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, ... in the general. The appeal has to be to the core, the base of the democratic party. This 'progressive' shtick has morphed into elitism. The party is about making a decent living. The appeal has to be to the working class

e.g., single working mothers, folks who have seen their standard of living collapse, people who live in fear of losing what they have worked for, … In other words, it is not about the first woman/black president, GLBT issues, …

One thing about change...

Mom grew up during the Great Depression. From her point of view, and that of a lot of others her age and within a couple decades of that, the Reagan administration set in motion a radical break with what they take as the basics of good government. Many of them welcomed the rhetoric at first - though not all, particularly not those who (like Mom) took their Christianity seriously enough to find the Religious Right a bunch of hypocritical smarmy whiners from the outset. But as it's gone on, they've realized more and more just how much they relied on and agreed with the New Deal covenant, and how much they miss it.

For people like that, Obama actually sounds conservative in a good way. When he talks about mutual obligations and support, communities uniting rather than dividing, and so on, he's talking about the prevailing wisdom of their youths. (Likewise, Clinton strikes some very familiar chords with them.) It's McCain who sounds to them like a continuation of radical folly.

Maybe my daughter was prescient when, at 7 (somewhere around 2002), she said, "First we need to elect an African American president, and then, we need to elect a woman president." And then, during the lead-up to the primary, these nice young (white) college boys came to my door to remind me to vote and then high fived each other when I said I would be voting for Obama.

I don't get too syrupy, but I sincerely think that electing an African American president or a woman means a lot to the youngest generation.

I listened to Lewis Powell swear in Doug Wilder as the first African American elected lieutenant governor in the nation (in Virginia) and remember what he said at the end: "This is a great day for the state of Virginia." I only think it would be a greater day if Obama won because I have difficulting clearing my mind of the fact that Hillary Clinton isn't so much where she is because she is a woman as because of her association with a former president. It somehow tarnishes the idea of being the "first" woman to do something.

JanieM:

That's a fair point, I suppose. It seems that my biases colored my reading of publius's original post. I find myself in near-total agreement with most of what publius writes, but a glaring exception is that I think he's far too willing to brand ours as a "post-racism society." So upon reflection, I realize that I was reading what he wrote through that lens, and it altered my understanding of it.

I think a big part of the problem comes with the term "racism" itself. Since so many people associate it most immediately with things like slavery, overt discrimination, lynchings, etc., they have a reflexive objection to the use of the term to describe lesser forms, which nonetheless are still fairly described as "racist."

I have family members not dissimilar to those publius has described. But while they're by no means open cross-burning racists, or anything even close to that, I still don't think it's fair to describe them as "100% non-racist." In fact, deep down, I don't think anyone (myself included) can truly be described as "100% non-racist." Racism is deeply, deeply embedded in our culture, our history, and our identity, even today, and I think that deep down, we all have racist tendencies that we have to actively work to overcome. This is true, I believe, irrespective of race, gender, creed, political affiliation, etc. It's true of all of us, to some degree or another.

So to that extent, I think it's dangerous to start thinking that we're somehow beyond race, or that we ever will be. Better, instead, to acknowledge it for what it is, and do the hard work of improving things. Which, if I may digress even further than I already have, is what I think Obama's speech did a good job of starting.

@ FlyOnTneWall

I jest. But I do so in the service of a serious point. Too often, our discussions of the effects of racism, sexism, and other pernicious constructs take place on an abstracted plane, divorced from actual behavior. In your post, you correctly note that sexism is a challenge that female candidates, however qualified, are still forced to confront. But unlike Publius' post, your exploration of discrimination didn't spring from an anomolous observation requiring explanation. As such, your thesis is not subject to testing, validation, or rejection. We can offer anecdotes in support or in opposition to the notion that gender is the key obstacle facing Hillary. But until it's grounded in a more concrete claim, it remains dangerously amorphous.

I am not sure I understand you correctly. Frankly, I don't see much difference. When you say that my exploration of discrimination doesn't spring from anomolous (anomalous I assume? Just checking, not snarking) observation, do you mean it is so common that is not noteworthy? I might agree with that but it seems contradictionary to the 'not subject to testing & validating' you mention next.

And isn't the racism charge as amorphous as the sexism charge? Isn't that the danger of the implicit 'ism, that it is less clear cut? FWIW, I don't think that sexism is the key obstacle for Hillary, but I also don't think racism is the key obstacle for Obama. Neither could have come this far if it was the key obstacle. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't play a role.

As I said earlier, where I life racism is different so I might not recognize all the subtle signals in the American society. But I see things like http://www.pensitoreview.com/images/screenshot-c.u.pr.n.t.jpg”>this, or the guys who held up a sign about allowing Hillary to do their laundry and I doubt that something as heavily racist could have happened without national outcry. If the explicit sexism is more allowable, might the implicit sexism not be pretty bad too?

tgirsch, I don't think that's a digression, it's the most important point. Improving things takes hard work and at the core of the hard work is the work on ourselves, and it's never easy and it's never finished.

I also agree with you that we'll never be 100% non-racist because I'm pretty sure it's built into us to conceptualize around "us and them." But I think it's also built into us to be able to reflect on our instinctive conceptualizations, revise and reframe our unconscious assumptions, and so on. And not just about race, which is the indirect point I was trying to make in all my stories and examples, starting with my joke about "Irish Catholics."

On a more down to earth level, I can't speak for publius, but as for myself: on the one hand, as I say, I totally agree that we are not in a "post-racial" context and it's dangerous to assume we are. But on the other hand, things are different from the way they were when I was young -- and in complex ways. And it helps to remember that, too.

tgirsch - i'm off to class but i take your point re: post-racism. i'll have to noodle on that more, but i agree that the election so far is calling that into question.

my whole thing with post-racism (he's referring to an older series of posts) was my frustration with overuse of the term "racist" and "racism." it's not so much that i thought it was gone, as it was being misapplied. it was a precise enough label for many of the problems facing us regarding race.

Somewhat OT but Obama related:

The last day of PA voter registration was nuts yesterday. Democrats picked up 161,574 new voters while Republicans lost 29,793 (since last Nov.). (!) Tens of thousands changed their party affiliation to D. Possibly not good news for Obama – older voters (45-54) were the largest group.

Very interesting, OCSteve. I've said it before and will again: I love me some increased turnout and registration.

tgirsch: Thanks for the fantastic quote! I hadn't heard that one.

My choice is between a person who feels to me like a political prodigy (my evidence being that magnificent speech last week), a vulture who keeps circling looking for carrion to feed on, and the very last man to be convinced of the value of the very lousy policies of the last 8 years.

However, bear in mind that Obama's number are now in the tank. His unfavorability is at HRCs and she's had more than 15 years of experience of making herself detested in the public eye. His favorability is lower than 50. So the widespread and ideologically diverse cheer being expressed here is not being expressed by all.

dutchmarbel:

Fair enough. I'll take another stab at it.

Sexism is very real. It's something I suspect we've all witnessed in our own lives. It's certainly played a role in the presidential campaign. My point is that it's easy to point to sexist comments and observations, to spot sexism in the media narrative, or to speculate about its impact on the race. It's harder, far harder, to specify how those forces play out at the ballot box.

I'd actually suggest that your post is focused on the wrong sorts of incidents. The hecklers who asked Hillary to do their laundry were employed by a local shock-jock radio show, which succesfully manufactured an incident to boost its ratings; the 527 group was set up by Roger Stone to sell t-shirts and other political paraphernalia. In both cases, the attacks were deliberately over the top, in a cynical effort to monetize outrage. Sure, there would've been greater condemnation of these incidents had they been racial, but it's not as if this was deemed acceptable behavior. And insofar as I can tell, these sorts of stunts - reprehensible though they may be - have actually bolstered Hillary's support. Certainly, her fundrasing operation thought so. It's the more subtle stuff that's really pernicious - the attention to Hillary's wardrobe, the double-bind of being too tough ('bitchy') or too soft ('weepy'), and all the rest. None of this is unique to Hillary - we've seen the same hurdles placed in front of qualified female candidates, time and time again.

But what's interesting about this cycle is that the electorate isn't responding as we might have predicted. In general, progressive women struggle to connect with blue-collar voters and with seniors. They tend to fare better with younger, more affluent, and more highly-educated voters. In this cycle, that fairly predictable dynamic has been inverted. And that's interesting.

Sure, there's a gender gap. But its causes and meanings are difficult to discern. Is it evidence that men are being swayed by their subtle sexism, allowing their gender stereotypes to bar them from voting from the establishment candidate who might otherwise have been expected to win? Or are women turning out to support a woman running for the highest office in the land, while men are less likely to allow gender to impact their decisions? It's a difficult question to answer. There's good evidence that both effects are real, but assigning relative weights is harder. It's a problem of confounding variables.

That's why it's difficult to ask the question Publius poses about race in respect to gender. It's tough to accuse most of the groups that form Obama's core constituencies of being particularly susceptible to sexism - after all, in most such contests, they vote for women at greater rates than the general electorate.

My post was aimed at encouraging you to ground your general observations about the impact of prejudice in the data from polls and electoral returns this cycle. Can it be, for example, that the younger female voters get, the more likely they are to be sexist, or the less likely they are to believe that a woman can prevail? Or is that evidence of a more subtle effect - that younger female voters, having encountered less sexism in their own lives, tend to assign less weight to gender in making their choices? Or, to choose another example, are working-class voters casting their ballots for Hillary because they're less sexist than, say, professionals? Or because other considerations have trumped gender in making their decisions?

These sorts of questions, I find, are more productive than simply citing incidents of sexism. We can all condemn sexism; grappling with the complex effects of gender on the presidential race is harder, but potentially more rewarding.

Why is it assumed that race is the biggest factor here? Couldn't it be that old people favor Clinton because she, too, is (comparatively) old, and Obama is young? We've had 16 years of boomers in the White House. Perhaps they've gotten used to running the country, and aren't anxious to pass the torch. (I know, Obama is technically a boomer, but nobody sees him that way.)

Of course, if this is the real underlying factor, I can only hope it doesn't sway too many of these voters to McCain in the general.

publius:
it was a precise enough label

I assume you mean that it wasn't. On that level, I'm inclined to agree, although I still contend that "post-racism" is exactly the wrong way to state that particular objection. :)

Forget the numbers.

Notice the mood.

Right now people are still in that groping around "what should I think" phase.

As more and more people push the theme that "it's okay" to like Obama, more and more people will.

The polls might reflect the worries about electability. Which is precisely why I'm cheerful. That is going to solve itself.

Obama has momentum. HRC has been losing it.

As people realized that a black man is running... and there isn't anything that different going on... the tide will turn.

As a Chicago area native and only recently an official old fart, and not possessing a lot of white guilt, I can choose Obama or not without regard to race. I certainly don't feel compelled to choose Obama because he is African American. (That would, in my mind, be a completely racist decision; i really try to not make them that way.)

Further, I know that Barack stands for "change", although I'm not at all sure what sort of change he is talking about. Surely, as a protege of Emil Jones, and an advisee of David Axelrod, he's not talking about change from brute force Chicago-style politics. Surely as an advisee of a UChicago Graduate Business School economist he's not talking about crossing over to Krugmanomics. And if he intends to bring republicans and democrats together by giving up democratic priniciples to adopt republican talking points, that is not "change" that I think is positive.

So don't be so quick to judge us old farts. We may have a little less racism in us than ya'all assume.

As a Chicago area native and only recently an official old fart, and not possessing a lot of white guilt, I can choose Obama or not without regard to race. I certainly don't feel compelled to choose Obama because he is African American. (That would, in my mind, be a completely racist decision; i really try to not make them that way.)

Further, I know that Barack stands for "change", although I'm not at all sure what sort of change he is talking about. Surely, as a protege of Emil Jones, and an advisee of David Axelrod, he's not talking about change from brute force Chicago-style politics. Surely as an advisee of a UChicago Graduate Business School economist he's not talking about crossing over to Krugmanomics. And if he intends to bring republicans and democrats together by giving up democratic priniciples to adopt republican talking points, that is not "change" that I think is positive.

So don't be so quick to judge us old farts. We may have a little less racism in us than ya'all assume.

@ FlyOnTneWall

Sexism is very real. It's something I suspect we've all witnessed in our own lives. It's certainly played a role in the presidential campaign. My point is that it's easy to point to sexist comments and observations, to spot sexism in the media narrative, or to speculate about its impact on the race. It's harder, far harder, to specify how those forces play out at the ballot box.

But isn't that true for all 'isms? And it is easy to point to the explicit remarks, but much harder to point at implicit remarks especially when people aren't even aware that they have them.

I'd actually suggest that your post is focused on the wrong sorts of incidents. The hecklers who asked Hillary to do their laundry were employed by a local shock-jock radio show, which succesfully manufactured an incident to boost its ratings; the 527 group was set up by Roger Stone to sell t-shirts and other political paraphernalia. In both cases, the attacks were deliberately over the top, in a cynical effort to monetize outrage. Sure, there would've been greater condemnation of these incidents had they been racial, but it's not as if this was deemed acceptable behavior. And

My point wasn't about the motive, my point was that there was a lot less outrage. You agree that there would have been a stronger reaction had the incidents been racial, so you implicitly seem to agree that racism is perceived as worse that sexism, even if both are not 'acceptable behaviour'.

insofar as I can tell, these sorts of stunts - reprehensible though they may be - have actually bolstered Hillary's support. Certainly, her fundrasing operation thought so. It's the more subtle stuff that's really pernicious - the attention to Hillary's wardrobe, the double-bind of being too tough ('bitchy') or too soft ('weepy'), and all the rest. None of this is unique to Hillary - we've seen the same hurdles placed in front of qualified female candidates, time and time again.

But that still leaves my point that it is more acceptable. I've seen people here use those kind of arguments without being aware that they might be seen as sexist – and they probably would be insulted if you called them out on it.

But what's interesting about this cycle is that the electorate isn't responding as we might have predicted. In general, progressive women struggle to connect with blue-collar voters and with seniors. They tend to fare better with younger, more affluent, and more highly-educated voters. In this cycle, that fairly predictable dynamic has been inverted. And that's interesting.

Sure, there's a gender gap. But its causes and meanings are difficult to discern. Is it evidence that men are being swayed by their subtle sexism, allowing their gender stereotypes to bar them from voting from the establishment candidate who might otherwise have been expected to win? Or are women turning out to support a woman running for the highest office in the land, while men are less likely to allow gender to impact their decisions? It's a difficult question to answer. There's good evidence that both effects are real, but assigning relative weights is harder. It's a problem of confounding variables.

Why do you assume that women are not sexist? And it is always a problem of different perceptions, different motives, a variety of variables that play a role. That is why it is near impossible to draw simple conclusions, including conclusions about what the key factor in deciding whom to vote for is.

That's why it's difficult to ask the question Publius poses about race in respect to gender. It's tough to accuse most of the groups that form Obama's core constituencies of being particularly susceptible to sexism - after all, in most such contests, they vote for women at greater rates than the general electorate.

Which core constituency are you referring to? I assume youngish intellectual progressives, because those are more likely to vote for others than the white hereosexual male (or are AA's more inclined to vote for women in the USA?). But in this case both candidates are outside that scope, so than it might become a matter of which 'ism is more and deeper rooted?

My post was aimed at encouraging you to ground your general observations about the impact of prejudice in the data from polls and electoral returns this cycle. Can it be, for example, that the younger female voters get, the more likely they are to be sexist, or the less likely they are to believe that a woman can prevail? Or is that evidence of a more subtle effect - that younger female voters, having encountered less sexism in their own lives, tend to assign less weight to gender in making their choices? Or, to choose another example, are working-class voters casting their ballots for Hillary because they're less sexist than, say, professionals? Or because other considerations have trumped gender in making their decisions?

I've not done research, but in my experience younger well educated women have encountered less sexism and tend to assign less weight to gender. I have not read Publius' post-racism posts on his own blog, but I do know several young female professionals who believe that they live in a more or less post-sexism community. But my first boss thought we lived in a post-sexims country because women could choose between carreer and family – a novity in his experience. I think the previous offered explanations for the working-class voters' motivations sound reasonable, but there are probabely more reasons. For instance; Obama's style might well have some class-connotations too, where they feel more of a distrust for the 'trandencending rhetoric' – that is definately one of the denominators in the Netherlands.

These sorts of questions, I find, are more productive than simply citing incidents of sexism. We can all condemn sexism; grappling with the complex effects of gender on the presidential race is harder, but potentially more rewarding.

I'm afraid it would be a rather limited discussion. Most commenters here are fervent Obama supporters so sexism is not really an issue for them.

"Most commenters here are fervent Obama supporters so sexism is not really an issue for them."

I know English isn't your first language so I call your attention to this in case it isn't what you meant. The 'so' in your sentence (and in my first one) implies that the first clause is a logical antecedent to the second clause with explanatory force:

I was hungry, so I got something to eat.
It was rainy, so I got wet.
I dislike Bob, so I snubbed him.

Did you really mean to say something like: they are Obama supporters, so they aren't interested in the issue of sexism?

I'm guessing that what dutchmarbel means is more like:

they are Obama supporters, so they aren't likely to be sexists.

I could be wrong about that, though, and I don't think that necessarily follows, either.

Well, here is the anecdotal evidence from Eugene, OR, where Obama spoke last Friday to an overflow crowd. The speech was also carried on a local TV station for those of us who didn't care to stand in line all day in the cold rain. Now despite its reputation as a liberal haven, the southern Willamette Valley is largely agricultural, and has a rather small minority population. It also has more problems with ethnic prejudice than people around here want to acknowledge.

Nevertheless:
Among my friends and acquaintances, women in their forties, fifties and older, there's a general level of disgust with Hillary Clinton. A number of people who had favored other candidates - Kucinich, Dodd, or Edwards - have now gone to Obama. I saw an elderly woman at my church on Easter Sunday (she's close to 100) wearing an Obama button, and I ate dinner with a friend who's in her mid-seventies who had watched his local speech on TV who's very enthusiastic about him. She's also spitting mad at the Clintons. This same friend had seen Obama's speech on race and been very impressed by it.

It could be that Oregon is following the pattern of other northern states with small minority populations. I don't know. I guess we'll see on May 20 when we have our primary. But I haven't seen race factoring in to the circles I move in here.

Gollee! Whatta thread!
Quality time. Prime time.
Much admiration to the fly for refreshing insight in particular—which should not be taken to suggest everyone else was not in exceptional form. Thanks to Bruce for his mother’s story, a particular personal pleasure in its intimate familiarity.

Two notions:
The reality that both black man and white woman must not only overcome customary obstacles but primal prejudices, raising their bar unfairly, guarantees that either candidate stands above the average crowd of politicians, having overcome greater obstacles. So either way we’re fortunate in having such quality to choose from.
The second note concerns change and experience in relation to older voters. The equation of change vs. experience is with new enterprise vs. business-as-usual. Older folks may be more likely to feel that things were working okay, and we know that things are as they are for some good reason and we just need someone who will manage the system more effectively. And (here my reasoning grows murkier) the more youthfully idealistic citizens are eager to enact the ideals on which they were raised, most particularly participatory democracy and fairness, having understood more readily that the whole race shares a common threat to which the reigning powers have proven unequal. For them radical change towards cooperative effort makes the possibility of survival more likely.
And speaking of the race, I like the idea that we need a better term than a much-corrupted ‘racism’.

you implicitly seem to agree that racism is perceived as worse that sexism, even if both are not 'acceptable behaviour'.
This clarifies for me what you’ve been contending all along; and I think you’re exactly right.

My Dad, now in his mid-sixties, worked in civil rights and anti-Vietnam activism in the South. He is absolutely convinced Obama will be murdered if he's elected at all.

In a way, he's the white liberal version of Jeremiah Wright - same age and not willing to believe America's attitude to race will ever really change.

If Oregon isn't as much of a lock for Obama to sweep as any territory with Democratic convention votes as there is, either he should quit, or I know abolutely nothing about Oregon politics.

My point wasn't about the motive, my point was that there was a lot less outrage. You agree that there would have been a stronger reaction had the incidents been racial, so you implicitly seem to agree that racism is perceived as worse that sexism, even if both are not 'acceptable behaviour'.

I wanted to respond to this, because it seems so important. You're correct to note that not all slurs tend to be regarded equally. But I think there's a worthwhile distinction to be made between discriminatory speech and discriminatory acts. We, as a society, tend to be particularly sensitive to hateful speech that targets certain groups, when such speech has in the past often been a precursor to public violence. Thus racially-charged speech, which so often incited public violence, has become a particular taboo. Similarly, anti-Semitic rhetoric tends to set off more alarm bells than other religiously-bigoted speech. And gay-bashing has lately assumed a similar position on the left of the spectrum, a sensitivity that's gradually being shared more broadly. (And I appreciate your understanding that I'm not arguing that this is how the world should be, merely attempting to describe how it is.)

But all of that relates to speech. I think that discriminatory acts tend to be judged more evenly, although I wouldn't go so far as to assert absolute parity. That is, whether you fire someone for being a woman or for being black, you'll probably ignite a firestorm. Refuse to serve a customer for being Sikh or being Jewish, and you'll get sued either way.

I also wanted to respond to this:

I'm afraid it would be a rather limited discussion. Most commenters here are fervent Obama supporters so sexism is not really an issue for them.

I hope you'll reconsider that position - it's a shame to abandon the chance for an interesting conversation before the attempt is even made. Perhaps posters here will surprise you. You began to take up the challenge in your penultimate paragraph. This thread is running out of steam, but I'm sure it won't be the last to touch on issues of gender in the campaign, and I hope when another does, we'll be able to renew this dialogue.

Did I mean they are Obama supporters, so they aren't interested in the issue of sexism?

I meant "so they aren't interested in discussing the issue of sexism in this thread".

Rereading what I wrote makes me realize that what I said could be misinterpreted, or at least could be read in a much more insulting tone then I had intended. I felt the post was allready quite long so I tried to say it quickly. But the post is more about hindrances Obama has to overcome and so is the current focus of ObWi.

We, as a society, tend to be particularly sensitive to hateful speech that targets certain groups, when such speech has in the past often been a precursor to public violence. Thus racially-charged speech, which so often incited public violence, has become a particular taboo.

It is an interesting grey area, what kind of speech is and is not allowed and how that should be regulated. Free speech vs hate speech, advantaged and disadvantages of prohibiting certain kinds of speech. A thread in itself ;)

But all of that relates to speech. I think that discriminatory acts tend to be judged more evenly, although I wouldn't go so far as to assert absolute parity. That is, whether you fire someone for being a woman or for being black, you'll probably ignite a firestorm.
Isn't that officially illegal in the US too? Though there are grey area's here too. Transgendered .... I forgot what public figure that was, who became female. Wasn't there a major who had to resign because he had used the word "niggardly"?

This thread is running out of steam, but I'm sure it won't be the last to touch on issues of gender in the campaign, and I hope when another does, we'll be able to renew this dialogue.

I hope so to. But I don't always have time for elaborate comments. My alamclock will wake me in 5 1/2 hours, I have to herd three rambunctious boys to school in the morning, have one son going up for his first swimdiploma in the afternoon and have to do taxes in the evening.

Anecdote!

Re: FlyOnTheWall's first comment here, I think he nailed it when he discussed general discomfort with "change" and the influx of young, unfamiliar voters. This was brought into high relief for me by a conversation I had with an 80-year-old man who was selling books at the table next to mine, while I was registering college kids to vote in Lancaster, PA.

He basically said explicitly what FotW described. Started out by asking how our success was (common question), but when I told him about the enthusiastic response, he struck an unfamiliar pose. He frowned, his brow crinkled, and he said something to the effect of, "you guys are really gonna change things up here locally, mess them up good"

I laugh uncomfortably and asked him if he thought registering more people to vote was a bad thing...and he basically said "yes".

"These young kids, what do they know about local issues?"

I pointed out that such a problem had an obvious solution: local activists and politicians simply now must pay attention to the college campuses in Lancaster or their causes will likely suffer. He was unsatisfied, and repeated the charge that we were "changing" everything around, upsetting the apple cart, so to speak. I pointed out that things hadn't been working too well for awhile now and it was change precisely that we seek, and his friend (also old) smiled and nodded at me. But the Gene remained skeptical, and seemed to disapprove of the whole affair.

It's also worth noting that in my experiences in California, Texas, and now Pennsylvania, the local establishment pols and party officials have generally shared those sentiments. Every once in awhile you get the more-enlightened type who welcome the swelling ranks, energy and dynamism our campaign brings with it, but a lot of people in Democratic politics, like that old codger Gene, view it as something at best a new hassle or chore to deal with, and as worst a total disaster for their careers or their communities.

dutchmarbel

I think the most common complaints on this site about Hillary Clinton are:

1) She was wrong about the Iraq War
2) Her campaign tactics have been negative
3) She does not have many policy/legislative achievements in her political career
4) She will adopt right-wing populist rhetoric in order to win temporary support
5) She has told easily disprovable lies

None of these are sexist arguments and I can imagine all being used about any similiar male candidate. Indeed some have been used against John McCain and Barack Obama on this site (e.g. what Obama said about Reagan).

Michael- I suspect that in many of those cases the country will be better off if increased voter participation is the end of those guys careers. They probably know that on some level which is why they don't like the idea of increased scutiny.

@magistra:

I don't have time for lenghty replies. I said sexism (including implicit sexism) played a role, just like racism in all likelyhood plays a role for Obama. That doesn't mean there aren't valid arguments to vote for or against either of the candidates. As I've repeatedly said: I have no real preference, they both have things I like and things I dislike.

1) She was wrong about the Iraq War

She was wrong with the vote to give Bush enough room, she was wrong about the level of threat from Saddam, but her fears about the war were the same as ours. But it counts as one of the 'negatives' on my Clinton list too.

2) Her campaign tactics have been negative

Both campaigns have been negative. Reading ObWi is like getting your info about the Iraq war from the Bush administration. It is not always wrong, but it paints a distorted picture.

3) She does not have many policy/legislative achievements in her political career

I thought they'd been more or less on par. I still have questions about Obama's voting record and ought to check on the rumours about who did the work for his legislative records. I have to do that elsewhere.

4) She will adopt right-wing populist rhetoric in order to win temporary support

And right-wing populist rhetoric has not been used against her?

5) She has told easily disprovable lies

They both have. And they both paint their accomplishments in the most positive way they can get away with.

I am not saying that all the things that are said are wrong - she has plenty of weak points and we all have different priorities to judge candidates by. But the amount of vitriol that is thrown in HRC's direction is unjustified. It is worse than the rightwingers used to do. It is so bad that some of those who never had anything good to say about her in the 5-7 years I read blogs now feel a need to occassionally defend her - against her fellow democrats. And then they blame her for it. That is really weird to see, from my outsiders point of view.

She has told easily disprovable lies
They both have. And they both paint their accomplishments in the most positive way they can get away with.

Name one lie Obama has told that's on the order of "I helped on Rwanda", "I arrived in a hail of bullets" (something we castigate the republicans for) or "I respect the Party's decisions with respect to Michigan".

What your seeing here isn't a bunch of Hillary-hatorz; what you're seeing is people who are shocked and dismayed by how nasty she is revealing herself to be.

(It gives my great pause that after all this time, when we've seen how strong, intelligent and capable Obama is, and how nasty and cupable Clinton is, they are still so close. It makes me worry that the general election may be close enough that Diebold may game it one more time.)

Marbel: They both have. And they both paint their accomplishments in the most positive way they can get away with.

And after all: they're politicians. It's what politicians do.

And then they blame her for it. That is really weird to see, from my outsiders point of view.

Yeah. Well. I do think this is an American fight, foreigners not wanted... ;-)

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad