Blogging Bayport Alameda

June 9, 2016

History has its eyes on you

Filed under: Alameda — Lauren Do @ 6:09 am

On Tuesday night, history was made. Whether you like Hillary Clinton, don’t like her, or can’t seem to muster any enthusiasm for her the fact is that based on her dominance in the primary on Tuesday night and the primary in general she is the first woman to be the nominee for a major political party in America.

I was pretty much glued to the television on Tuesday night, I even stayed up to watch Bernie Sanders speak even after he was way behind schedule, probably hoping that the California returns, which were at 60+% for Hillary Clinton when the first wave of vote by mail ballots came through, was going to tighten up so he’d have more good news than simply winning the North Dakota caucus and Montana.

But what got me tearing up last night was the video that played at Hillary Clinton’s rally right before she spoke.  I’m not that sentimental of a person, although I’ve gotten a lot more weepy as I age, but this really moved me.  Perhaps because I’m right about that age where my youthful idealism and belief that competence would be rewarded regardless of race and gender has pretty much been worn away from year after year of subtle and not-so-subtle misogyny and prejudice. But the enormity of what has happened just eight years after another historic moment in America smacked me really hard in the face on Tuesday night.

There was this great article in the New Republic about how every single male candidate’s supporters have been profiled, but nothing about the Hillary Clinton supporter.  Perhaps because folks like me, even though I’m pretty unshy about stating my political feelings, I never felt that comfortable about a full throated pronouncement that I was with her.  Not because I wasn’t excited about Hillary Clinton as a candidate, mostly because I didn’t want to deal with the inevitable onslaught of Bernie Sanders memes.  Here’s the relevant line:

It’s certainly curious to presume, as many do, that Clinton’s supporters are somehow less enthusiastic than Sanders’s are. How is enthusiasm measured, if not by actual vote count? And they are doing so despite the media narrative surrounding their candidate, despite hearing very little about themselves in the media, despite her “damn” emails, despite Benghazi, despite her low Gallup favorables, and despite how everyone else is “Feeling the Bern.” If anything, Clinton might need to thank the press for consistently underestimating her. Perhaps this is why her supporters are coming out for her in such strength: to assert their existence in the face of a narrative that both overlooks them and disparages their candidate.

It’s funny that someone from Alameda posted on twitter before the California results rolled in that they expected, based on signs and shirt wearing, that Alameda’s Bernie to Hillary margin would be an easy 99% – 1%  But according to Alameda’s Registrar of Voters the final Alameda County wide split was 53% – 46%.  There’s not a by city breakdown yet, unless Mike McMahon has uncovered it.

In the end, Hillary Clinton’s nomination makes me hopeful that perhaps, eventually, competence will get accurately rewarded regardless of one’s gender or race.  I don’t expect everything to change overnight, progress is incremental, but this is one barrier that has been broken.  I comfort myself with the hope that if Hillary Clinton is elected president of the United States then my children and their peers will have grown up in an America where the leader of the country looks vastly different than the ones that have preceded them and that they have not grown up with the belief that only white men are eligible to reach the highest ranks of leadership in our country.



  1. I would have preferred a transgender president.

    Comment by Hugo — June 9, 2016 @ 6:32 am

  2. 2 candidates with very high negatives in polls. Does that increase or decrease turnout?

    Comment by dave — June 9, 2016 @ 6:42 am

    • I’ll still vote, but this is the year I finally change my voter registration from “NPP” to an official third Party.

      Two heavily authoritarian, baby boomer candidates from the major parties. I’d say “unbelievable” but it really does seem to be what the American people want and isn’t that hard to believe anymore.

      Comment by brock — June 9, 2016 @ 8:49 am

    • Depends:

      Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million Votes

      Comment by jack — June 9, 2016 @ 9:24 am

    • Depends:

      Trump Shatters Republican Primary Vote Record by 1.4 Million Votes

      Jim Hoft Jun 7th, 2016 11:48 pm 1211 Comments

      Comment by jack — June 9, 2016 @ 9:25 am

  3. My mother, who is 93, was born just three years after women achieved the right to vote in 1920. She is an avid Clinton supporter this year, just as she was in 2008. Women like my mother and Hillary Clinton have worked hard and sacrificed a great deal to shatter glass ceilings all their lives, and I am very happy to see this come to pass.

    I believe Hillary Clinton’s high negatives are more a result of the GOP’s concerted campaign–now over 20 years old–to discredit her and her husband even more than it is the result of their individual human shortcomings. (And no one is perfect, even Bernie Sanders, after spending decades on this planet.) For example, I appreciate the fact that she has remained committed to her marriage with Bill Clinton and is honoring her wedding vows despite his fallibility. To me, THAT is real “family values” at work.

    I am very pleased and proud that–finally–a woman who has worked for social, economic, and health justice all of her adult life will be the Democratic presidential nominee. It is long past time to shatter that glass ceiling.

    Comment by Jon Spangler — June 9, 2016 @ 6:56 am

    • Shirley Chisholm was historic – Geraldine Ferraro was historic- but this is historically bad…Clinton rode the manipulation of the super delegates and the ” too early” declaration by the AP that she had “won” the nomination before the California primary, depressing the turnout and emasculating the primary voting process. How ironic you compliment her for “standing by her man” as she previously rejected those more traditional American values.

      Clinton is the most underwhelming candidate since Dukakis. What is her strength? Please don’t say foreign policy. The world is a much more dangerous place due to her failed policies, both as a Senator and as Secretary of State. Can she work with Republican leaders if elected? She is hated by the Republicans and she hits back hard. If elected, the lack of cooperation will be worse than it was with Obama.

      Biden and Bernie will be waiting in the wings if the FBI report doesn’t clear her.

      Comment by Captain Obvious — June 9, 2016 @ 9:46 am

      • C.O. The premature revelation by AP could only suppress lazy Hillary supporters who figured they need not vote. It only bolstered Bernie supporters determination to vote.

        Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 10:00 am

      • Except that she wins without the superdelegates and the only argument that existed for Bernie Sanders at the very end were to flip super delegates in the face of less pledged delegates and less overall votes.

        Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 10:12 am

        • yes and even though it seems pretty undemocratic, the thing about flipping super delegates, it is by the rules if nobody has 2380( are you reading this J.E.A ? ) So Bernie did know the rules after all. I don’t believe the premature AP revelation gave Hillary the minimum number of regular delegates. In fact does she have them yet? I just checked a site I believe is current and without supers she is still at 2203 of the 2383 she needs.

          Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 11:04 am

      • As a betting man, I have no idea who will be fixing the voting machines this season.

        Never the less, my trifecta picks are Ronald, Arnold, and Donald.

        Hard to put your money on these lame horses until you look at their competition.

        Comment by Gerard L. — June 9, 2016 @ 10:19 am

        • MI….the rules are Super Delegates count…..I will once again say …..if Bernie didn’t like the idea of SD’s he should have worked on changing the system….oh, that’s right he is not a Democrat. I am all in for getting rid of SD’s for the next election as long as we get rid of caucuses too……

          Comment by J.E.A. — June 9, 2016 @ 11:40 am

        • J.E.A. perhaps you didn’t read my comment correctly. We all know they count so no need to repeat but they don’t automatically count for Hillary since in the end they can technically change their vote. Sanders objected to them being attributed to Hillary from day one.

          Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 2:16 pm

        • Wasn’t Sanders against the SDs before he was for them? Or something on those lines 🙂 It’s all moot now, with any luck he will go back to lily white VT soon.

          Comment by bayporter — June 9, 2016 @ 2:22 pm

        • MI….perhaps this will help….Huffpost Politics…..When Sanders’ Superdelegate Truthism Confronts Reality, Reality wins……

          Comment by J.E.A. — June 9, 2016 @ 3:12 pm

  4. Lauren, have you seen “Shirley Chisholm: Unbought and Unbossed”? I think it’s on Netflix. You’d love it.

    Comment by Kristen — June 9, 2016 @ 7:46 am

    • ^^^^^^^^^ YES!!!

      Comment by frank — June 9, 2016 @ 8:12 am

    • I’ve been meaning to watch it, I’ll check it out. Fun fact: one of my former bosses worked as a young aide to Shirley Chisholm. Another fun fact: I submitted the name Shirley Chisholm for consideration when Ruby Bridges Elementary was being named, it was a finalist, but not picked.

      Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 8:41 am

      • Considering the time that she ran and that she was black, Chisholm’s is more historic. First is first so if Hillary gets there it will be an historic event, but the nomination is as much about Hillary’s ambition as anything and the goose bumps that gives me are not from sentimentality.

        Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 10:09 am

      • Anyone who runs for president does it with a healthy dose of ambition. Hillary Clinton’s ambition should not give you any more goosebumps than say Bernie Sanders’s, Donald Trump’s, Barack Obama’s or the hundreds of people who have run for president (or any elected office) before. The fact is that a woman’s ambition is largely looked upon as something to be disgusted by and a man’s is looked on as a positive and a virtue is in fact why it’s taken this long to have a viable female candidate and that person had to be two times as qualified as all the men (and the lone Republican woman) to make it this far.

        Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 10:15 am

        • sorry Lauren, but I don’t accept your putting the gender spin on my comment. It is that good old Clinton ( Bill) ambition which gives me chills. As I’ve said before I can’t stand the guy and will be really conflicted if she continues to sell him as the great economic Wizard of Oz for her administration. Send him out to buy milk and eggs or something.

          Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 10:47 am

        • That you don’t recognize that you calling out, specifically, Hillary Clinton’s ambition as something to have negative goosebumps about as opposed to every other male candidate in the history of presidential elections is, on its face, gendered.

          Is Bernie Sanders staying in the election until DC not blatant ambition to further whatever agenda he has? At this point in the election in 2008, Hillary Clinton had already conceded, but a man’s ambition is to be lauded, celebrated, and painted as a virtue. A woman’s, and specifically Hillary Clinton’s, is something to be derided or she is expected to politically pay for the baggage people have with her husband.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 10:52 am

        • Everybody is ambitious. Everybody is trying to further their career, or make more money, etc That goes double (or a million) for politicians.

          The trick is to be ambitious without looking ambitious. Think of a doctor appointment. You see the Mercedes parked outside the office and if you think about it, you can imagine your doctor checking her portfolio in between patients. She works hard to make good money and wants to make more. We all do.

          But imagine if your doc checked checked stock quotes in the middle of a consultation. Suddenly, naked ambition is on display. She is only it for herself and herself alone. How do you feel about the good doctor now?

          I’ve never gotten the vibe that either of the Clintons were about anything other than naked ambition. (And I voted for Bill and will vote for Hillary if Trump is still alive on Election Day). I always got the same vibe from Rob Bonta, so it’s not about gender.

          It’s pretty obvious every other politician is ambitious for themselves. The good ones manage to care about something other than themselves, or at least fake it better. It’s one of the key differences between a politician and a leader.

          I try to vote policy over personality, and like to think I do it every time, but personality does matter. It’s the main reason I find Hillary uninspiring, even if I’m going to vote for her.

          Comment by dave — June 9, 2016 @ 11:24 am

        • if she wishes to shed the baggage Bill brings, she could have divorced the guy. You get the impression they share a bed? As for Bernie not having dropped out, he has been pushing Hillary on issues in a way that I don’t recall Hillary doing with Obama. I’m not giving Bernie a free pass because he is a man. I admire Hillary’s ambition and think it is what will make her worthy to serve, but there are aspects which are not admirable. In terms of tagging women with spousal baggage this is not a game of p[in the tail on the donkey.

          Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 11:43 am

        • Does Bernie Sanders share the baggage that his wife bankrupted the college that she ran? Does Donald Trump share the baggage of his wife’s racy modelling career? Of course not, we never hold men accountable for their spouses, even Barack Obama didn’t take a hit over the whole Michelle Obama proud of my country moment.

          But women, like Hillary Clinton, are supposed to be pure from a political standpoint to “shed” themselves of things and people that may have people view them as less than perfect. To not be judged on the actions of her husband she should have divorced him rather than be judged as an human being in her own right.

          As to the strength of their marriage, I absolutely 100% believe that their relationship is as represented to the public. That they have lasted so long under the scrutiny, mistakes, and human failings is a positive. Every marriage has problems, every marriage has tensions, but how we deal with these problems and tensions is a testament to the strength of a relationship and not whether someone still thinks that they’ve having sex. The Rebecca Traister NY Magazine piece is good insight into the marriage of the Clintons.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 12:33 pm

        • I noticed the BK’d college, and Trump’s use of the same. We’ll see plenty of effort to de-stigmatize BK, at least from one side, before Nov.

          Comment by MP — June 9, 2016 @ 12:42 pm

        • ” The fact is that a woman’s ambition is largely looked upon as something to be disgusted by…” Like the way you were disgusted by Sarah Palin’s ambition? What a hypocrite you are. You have never impressed by a woman’s ambition, unless she’s a progressive woman democrat with ambition, whom you happen to agree with. Stop pretending to be a feminist. The majority of the local people you have mocked and ripped to shreds in this blog–not just the mayor and city manager, but Thompson, Lipow, Sweeney, etc… have been WOMEN. That is your legacy. And who are your most ardent supporters? BMac, Brock, MI, JP, Spangler, JKW.. gee, they’re all MEN. Just sayin’…

          Meanwhile, not a peep from you about the million-signature petition that is all over the news, on the floor of Congress, and addressed by Joe Biden. [finally something I can be proud of him for doing]…

          Don’t ever change Lauren. Your consistent inconsistency is always entertaining.

          Comment by vigi — June 10, 2016 @ 9:31 am

        • The fact that Lauren is the exception to the rule (a woman with the appetite and endurance to engage a bunch of belligerent men in the daily tire fire that can be an internet comments section) reinforces many of the points she is making, rather than undermining them as vigi wishes to point out.

          Just like the 99 to 1 counts of Bernie to Hillary signs, most women are much more selective about when they put themselves out there on political issues, because, who wants to deal with the barrage that awaits?

          Comment by BMac — June 10, 2016 @ 9:50 am

      • Hillary was an active participant in Bill’s presidency. Did Bernie get deeply involved in Burlington College’s affairs? (I have no idea, just asking). If he was, then he should face some heat.

        Comment by dave — June 9, 2016 @ 1:02 pm

        • MI was saying that Hillary Clinton should take responsibility for the actions and ambitions of her husband and that if she doesn’t want to be linked to them she should have divorced him, specifically: “if she wishes to shed the baggage Bill brings, she could have divorced the guy.”

          The fact is men are never held responsible for the actions of their spouse, but women, and in this case Hillary Clinton, she is responsible and culpable for every bad decision made by Bill Clinton simply because she didn’t divorce him.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 1:13 pm

        • There are so many people here who are ready to jump on Rob Bonta that I see no reason to pile on, but dave’s invoking his ambition resonates greatly with the kind of ambition which makes me squirm. John Kerry’s wife Teresa Heinz might be an example of potential female baggage but it never went anywhere. She comes off as a sort of effete cold fish, but if their wealth is the object of scrutiny for reasons which are not clearly political fodder then so be it.. Bill’s ambition was pretty grotesque and Hillary was part of his administration. Most people don’t know about Jane Sander’s problems. Trumps current wife is better spoken than Marla was but is still a trophy wife. She is the brunt of jokes on late night TV all the time and I see no reason why spouses should not, to the point they are relevant, be the focus of scrutiny. Milania Trump appears to be a bimbo who is emblematic of Trump’s narcissism.

          Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 2:37 pm

        • By all accounts Milania Trump is not a bimbo, but there was little to no blow back on Donald Trump when she grossly excused anti-semitic threats against a reporter who wrote a very fair profile of Milania Trump that bucked the “bimbo” moniker.

          But we all want our female archetypes to be one-dimensional don’t we? Bimbo, bitch, mother, etc and so forth. No need to judge them as complete and complex people that make mistakes and have accomplishments to celebrate, they can be judged on appearance alone or be forced to carry the baggage of their male spouse.

          Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 3:23 pm

        • Leave a little room for exception there. Bill Lockyer hardly escaped unscathed from his wife’s issues. He decided to retire after, although he said the decision was not due to them.

          Comment by MP — June 9, 2016 @ 4:02 pm

        • Lauren, I did say “appears” because I’m aware she is more articulate than his former wife Marla, but she leads with her appearance and that certainly does rub off on the Donald. Did you see the pose with high heels and gun? WTF? Oh it’s Guerilla Theater that she presents as a bimbo but is really the brains of the operation.

          “That you don’t recognize that you calling out, specifically, Hillary Clinton’s ambition as something to have negative goosebumps about as opposed to every other male candidate in the history of presidential elections is, on its face, gendered.”

          I guess because I made my statement about her ambition on your thread about how great is is she is a woman would open the door for the latter part of your statement being justified, but my negative goosebumps are not about gender and claiming it is just because I am a man may be just as gendered, isn’t it? Her husband sets off my BS meter for slimy ambition even more. Hillary just once in a while. Naked ambition is gender neutral.

          Comment by MI — June 10, 2016 @ 2:30 pm

  5. So glad that Hillary is our nominee!!!! I watched her speech on Tuesday night and I couldn’t help but feel excited and hopeful about our future with Hillary as President.

    She’s going to make a great President.

    Comment by Karen Bey — June 9, 2016 @ 8:34 am

    • If your standard is that she is not Trump then I can agree now she she will make a great president. She clearly is the best qualified and has the capacity to be great, but ask me in four year how great she is. Bernie simply has a more progressive platform.

      Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 9:43 am

  6. Meanwhile, in the real world, nothing has really changed. Female physicians between 2000-2013 earned 40% less than their male counterparts. White male MDs earn 35% more than African-American MDs.

    “White male physicians in the United States earn a whopping 35 percent more than their black male counterparts — even after accounting for factors such as field of medical specialty, experience, and hours worked. Data published Tuesday [6/7/2016] in the British Medical Journal also showed a large gender gap. White female physicians earned 40 percent less than white men, and black women earned less still.”

    Cry me a river, Lauren.

    Comment by vigi — June 9, 2016 @ 9:13 am

  7. Meanwhile in the really real world.

    That mean FBI trying their best to bring charges against our dear future first female president. Now were she a male selling Uranium to the Ruskies in return for their wonderful “Foundation” donations or giving away classified documents to whomever used her bathroom…no charges would ever have been brought forward.

    Comment by jack — June 9, 2016 @ 9:35 am

  8. CA-13 (Barbara Lee) one of the most liberal districts went for Hillary 51.1-48.5

    CA-12 (Nancy Pelosi), Hillary 55.5-44.1

    You would think it would be Sanders by a landslide looking at the bumper stickers and the crowds.

    I reckon nobody wants to get their car vandalized by the Bernie Bros …

    Comment by bayporter — June 9, 2016 @ 10:01 am

  9. I also found the History Made video to be so well done and very moving. I pulled it up last night and showed it to our kids.

    My 7th grade son said yesterday that he was surprised that Clinton won because it seemed like there were “a lot more yard signs and stickers for Bernie”. I told him that I agreed, and it also seemed like there were a lot more people at the Bernie rallies than at the Hillary rallies. He asked why we didn’t have a Hillary sign in our yard (I sometimes put out signs in support of various propositions and measures that I feel very strongly about). It was a wonderful teaching moment — about the complexities of voting, how its not as easy as it should be, how the voting system is not as straightforward as it should be, and why I chose to not flaunt my steadfast support of Hillary.

    I am so impressed and excited that Bernie was able to achieve all that he has in this campaign, and I hope that he and his supporters will have a meaningful and lasting impact on many of the deeply entrenched issues that our country faces. I know I have been inspired by him and will add my voice to their cause.

    But for this Presidential campaign, I am 100% behind Hillary.

    Comment by Dya — June 9, 2016 @ 10:28 am

  10. When she wins — and I’m pretty confident she will — it will be a moment of pride for the country. Even for those who vote (or already voted) against her (hoping that the first female president would be someone else). Just as it was for (most) of those who voted against Barak Obama in 2008. (Included in that is Bill Clinton who – with somewhat unclear purpose, but very publicly – tried to downplay Obama’s victory over HRC in the South Carolina primary by likening it to Jesse Jackson’s past successes there. HRC attributed the 2008 remark to “sleep deprivation”). We’ll see how the campaign goes, but right now it looks like she has drawn a weaker opponent than Obama did, and she may have advantages on election day that haven’t been captured in polling yet. Might that lead to a congress that is slightly more reluctant to reflexively shut down everything that might be seen as a victory for the other side? Unlikely. And her first job, naturally, is to win. But…..

    Comment by MP — June 9, 2016 @ 11:47 am

  11. My issue with Hilary is that she offers neither a vision for a utopian society nor progressive solutions to the issues we are really facing that I fear will result in a dystopian future unless they are addressed. She represents herself as progressive but is simply a continuation of the status quo. I would prefer a president who is willing to address the real issues being faced by a world that is moving from an energy intensive economy based on moving “stuff” around to one based on moving information around, with all that that implies. So, for example in the case of a decent education – quick fix ideas like loan subsidies from the government, do not address the root cause need to train more people at less cost to survive on their ability to think well and independently. Or, for example how we could address the accrual of vast wealth by a very small number of people who because of our broken constitutional system in which money buys influence means that politicians are their proxy to maintain the status quo. Maybe she’s bright enough to realize that there really are no solutions to these issues so it’s just best to not upset the apple cart rather than emit charismatic slogan candy.

    Comment by Adrian Blakey — June 9, 2016 @ 2:46 pm

    • Adrian- “you da man!”

      Comment by Captain Obvious — June 9, 2016 @ 2:58 pm

    • “quick fix ideas like loan subsidies from the government, do not address the root cause need to train more people at less cost to survive on their ability to think well and independently” You seem to assume there are in fact cost efficient ways to teach people well. It’s a labor intense process and one needs some fairly well educated students with good reading skills to be able to implement cost savings on teaching subjects like math with computers.

      On a good note, I am fairly certain I heard that Hillary is not a fan of charter schools which if true is mind blowingly great news. There are certainly plenty of fires for a president to put out and trying to rank them by importance is rather futile but education is one area where Obama gets an “F” in my book.

      Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 3:52 pm

  12. Here’s the female ambition argument in form of an Atlantic piece. Appropriately:

    It leads, even, to Parks and Recreation’s Leslie Knope—one of the most delightful lady-pols in pop-cultural history—repeatedly confirming her worthiness for public office by demonstrating that her desire to serve comes from selflessness (rather than personal, and therefore more stereotypically masculine, and therefore more fraught, ambition).

    In America, you prove your worthiness for power by proving your lack of desire for that power. If you are a woman, you have an added challenge: You must prove that you will use the power you want-but-don’t-want to act on behalf of everyone but yourself.

    Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 3:38 pm

    • Lauren, the cultural memes about female ambition are undeniable. As for Hillary and Bill’s marriage, it was destroyed maybe before his ascendance to the White House by his infidelities and upon it’s demise replaced by a cynical business relationship which is why their mutual ambition is so inextricably linked.

      Here’s an image: Sanders getting a blow job in the White House?

      Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 4:04 pm

      • Have you read this Rebecca Traister article? I would before making further comments on the status of the marriage of the Clintons. Given that neither of us have an inside look into their marriage, I would assume profiles like this would be a better substitute for our feelings about the solidity of their relationship.

        Comment by Lauren Do — June 9, 2016 @ 4:14 pm

      • Where else would he get a BJ? We really don’t want the POTUS sneaking out to a Red Roof Inn, do we?

        Comment by dave — June 9, 2016 @ 4:22 pm

  13. We should take our cues from Bernie and continue to work from the bottom up. He has embodied the Occupy movement which when it was happening was very frustrating to behold because it was so nebulous. As part of the status quo Hillary is not a bad place to start. As for elections I will beat this dead horse some more, Ranked Choice Voting ! Using it would allow third parties to exist without being threatening as spoilers. Then we could move to phase II of election reform by side stepping Citizen’s United entirely and eliminating expensive elections by regulations which prohibit TV advertising and shortening the entire process. Publicly funded elections must become affordable. We now have FIVE, count ’em, 5 months of this campaign blood letting to endure.

    Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 3:49 pm

  14. I look forward to Trump getting his ass kicked BY A WOMAN.

    Comment by MI — June 9, 2016 @ 4:10 pm

    • Worth reading for the Antony Weiner tweet

      Comment by MP — June 9, 2016 @ 5:40 pm

  15. Personally, I do not care whether we are governed by a man or woman, or what race they are. So many of the countries have had female leaders. Famous ones are Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, and Margaret Thatcher. If you look there are numerous others who are not as familiar to us.

    Maybe when we start looking at peoples’ values and not their race or sex, then maybe real equality will happen. Stop classifying people by something they cannot change but rather look at the content of their character.

    I am getting to think that the liberal, politically correct are a hindrance to real social improvements. They may be the ones who are really holding people back.

    Comment by Hugo — June 9, 2016 @ 4:56 pm

    • Hugo, please! How dare you mention those three non-progressives on this blog. Get with the program and try Liu Yandong, Brinda Karat and super cutie Camila Vallejo.

      Even our hero of the last century, Иосиф Сталин, had this to say: The Congress of the Communist International recognizes that the realization of all the tasks it sets by itself, as well as the ultimate victory of the world proletariat and the complete abolishment of the capitalistic system, can be attained only by the closely united common effort of the women of the working class.

      Comment by jack — June 10, 2016 @ 10:30 am

      • I am just a regular person. I am not part of the new group of know- it-all, intellectualizing challengers, who condescend to all of us ignorant folk.

        I may sense a touch of sarcasm, but I am not in your group to really know what you mean. If you can teach the masses, in regular words and ideas, perhaps I can learn something from what you are saying.

        I choose other intellectual challenges.

        Comment by Hugo — June 10, 2016 @ 1:02 pm

        • Sorry Hugh, your statement about political correctness is a hindrance hit the nail on the head. My comment was not meant to disparige yours.

          Comment by Jack — June 10, 2016 @ 7:40 pm

  16. FYI, there are 2.6 million unprocessed ballots statewide. 1.8 million Vote by Mail ballots and 700,000 provisional ballots. County by county breakdown here:

    Comment by Mike McMahon — June 9, 2016 @ 6:20 pm

    • Interesting. In an era where for better or (more likely) worse, instant reactions matter more than final facts, it’s troublesome that mail votes (which are increasing each election as a proportion of total votes, I believe) are counted so painfully slowly. This doesn’t seem an insurmountable technical challenge. By the time the actual tallies are made, the media narratives will have been determined and we’ll have forgotten the election.

      Comment by BC — June 10, 2016 @ 1:40 pm

  17. Friday night update: June 7 Primary Update: Alameda County ROV processed 27,430 of the 150,000 unprocessed ballots.

    Hillary is now at 118,035 and Bernie is at 101,218. Hillary increased her lead from 15,778 on Election Night to 16,817.
    On a local level, Barbara Thomas remains just under 48%, therefore triggering a November runoff. And Amber Childress is still upsetting Marlon McWilliams by 825 votes.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — June 10, 2016 @ 7:11 pm

  18. You go girl !

    Comment by MI — June 11, 2016 @ 10:05 am

  19. By a woman about two women.

    Comment by MI — June 12, 2016 @ 12:37 pm

  20. June 7 Primary Update: Alameda ROV has counted the 110,000 unprocessed vote by mail ballots. Hillary has increased her lead over Bernie to 16,680 votes. There are 40,000 provisional ballots to be counted. Bernie would need to win over 70% of the provisional ballots to close the 16,000 vote gap.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — June 13, 2016 @ 5:42 pm

  21. Final June 7 Primary Recap: Alameda County has completed processing all of the ballots. Hillary’s election lead of 15,778 shrank to 10,934 when 157,349 ballots were counted since June 7th. Total turnout was 49.3% countywide. Democratic turnout was 59.1%. I estimate approximately 35,000 No Party Preference (NPPs) voted in the Democratic Primary.

    Comment by Mike McMahon — June 22, 2016 @ 9:21 pm

  22. If she is elected it will be great and we can celebrate the historic moment of fisrt woman president. Then we can forget gender and go back to her legacy, which by her own choice will include her *`spouse, apparently. Good luck ya’ll.

    Comment by MI — June 23, 2016 @ 10:35 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Create a free website or blog at