Boomer White Women Dropping Support for Obama

by: Matt Stoller

Thu May 29, 2008 at 18:44


Obama's numbers have come down, but Josh Orton is missing the picture.  It's women, specifically, white women, who are unhappy and switching over to, mostly, undecided.
Matt Stoller :: Boomer White Women Dropping Support for Obama
Recent declines in Obama's image have been pronounced among whites - especially white women. Currently, just 43% of white women express a positive opinion of Obama, down from 56% in late February.

This is confirmation of what Gallup noted earlier.

The only major demographic group still supporting Clinton to the tune of 51% or more is women aged 50 and older. This group's preferences have changed little during May, at the same time that Clinton's support among younger men (those 18 to 49) has declined by nearly 10 points.
 

And not only is it white women, according to Pew, it's white women between the ages of 30-64, with a specific heavy loss among women between the ages of 50-64.  In other words, this is Clinton's bread and butter.

The survey finds that as many 39% of Clinton's female supporters believe that her gender has hurt her candidacy. In turn, favorable opinions of Obama have tumbled among women who support Clinton - from 58% in March to 43% currently. By contrast, there has been a slight increase in positive views of Obama over this period among men who support Clinton (from 42% in March to 47% currently).

Women, in particular boomer women, are really really mad.  Digby says 'don't put baby (boomer) in the corner', and she's right.  Women of working age who grew up on choice and first wave feminism and strong glass ceilings and saw, up close, sexual harrassment and the Clarence Thomas hearings in 1991, don't like a new form of politics that comes complete with a besmirching of one of their icons.  I'm seeing women attacked for sexism all over the country, and it is making white boomer women extremely angry.  And it's showing up in the numbers.

And here's a video that drives home the point.

Update: WomenCount PAC is one of the top of the Actblue stats.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Boomer White Women Dropping Support for Obama | 337 comments
right (4.00 / 3)
They remember the ERA too.  



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Oh shit. That video is not good. (4.00 / 1)
He comes off as very patronizing.  And I'm an Obama supporter.  But that does not look good.  
it doesn't look good (0.00 / 0)
I had heard about that, but not watched it until now.

It looks worse than it sounds if you've just heard about it.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Really? (4.00 / 1)
When you are in New York or Chicago sweetie is a pretty common casual form of endearment. I have heard it many times. God we are all so sensitive.
[ Parent ]
this is so important (4.00 / 14)
Too many Obama supporters are dismissive of the white women who supported Clinton and don't like to see her called an evil bitch or worse.

I believe that most of these women will come home and vote for Obama, but right now a lot of them are extremely angry at the "sore winners" in the Obama fan club.

I have a diary coming soon about how Obama volunteers should communicate with non-supporters. This is from the section about angry and frustrated women who backed Hillary in the primaries:

If they have worked outside the home, they have seen this movie before: the younger, charismatic man gets the job (or the promotion, or the account), while the older, more qualified woman gets passed over.

These people are just as disappointed by the way things turned out as you would be if the superdelegates had handed the nomination to Clinton after Obama earned it. They liked Bill, they like Hillary, and they thought she would do a great job. They are frustrated that millions of voters picked the hot shot over the smart, hard-working woman. In their minds, Hillary deserved the nomination, but voters picked someone less prepared for the job.

To add insult to injury, many of them now believe that they will not live to see a woman president.

Too many Obama supporters are unable to empathize with this kind of voter. They repeat the mistakes of some arrogant Clinton supporters a year ago: "Deal with it--he's going to be the nominee." Or, they try to argue that Obama is just as qualified as Hillary, or they change the subject to argue about racist overtones coming from Clinton supporters.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Nailed it (4.00 / 4)
I see this a lot out on the internets.  That narrative is just a killer if you personally identify with it.

Outside of putting Clinton on the ticket, I'm not sure what he can do.  SurveyUSA started polling with Clinton on ticket and she doesn't seem to do as well as Edwards, but it isn't far off, so far.

[ Parent ]
How about let them know John McCain is on the ballot? (4.00 / 6)
"Outside of putting Clinton on the ticket, I'm not sure what he can do."

There is, as I've pointed out before, a silver lining to the fact that this is the demographic most upset about Hillary's loss...They are also most likely to care the most about women's issues and things like being pro-choice. So let them know the differences between Obama and McCain. Like the fact that McCain is anti-choice!

I think boomer feminists will go through the grieving process and come to support Obama, no matter who his VP is (please be Edwards) because they know the stakes for the supreme court are just too high.

You also need to get Michele Obama out there a lot more.

[ Parent ]
McSame (4.00 / 5)
Telling them McSame is one the ballot is not going to cut it. First of all, all those drama queen diaries at other community blogs about how the diarest couldn't support Clinton in the general gave Clinton supporters moral permission to walk in the general. That is one of many reasons those sorts of diaries should never be written.

Another problem in bullying, the Why Won't The Stupid Bitch Quit rhetoric, that began back when Clinton still had a chance did terrible damage and the continued willful misinterpetation of Clinton's words is only making matters worse.

I really get the impression that Obama just plain does not respect women. He has to comport himself in such a way that shows (not says) that he respects women. I have thought for some time that netroots does not really respect women, that our issues are "fringe issues."

Obama needs to say clearly that he will protect Social Security, none of this crap about minor changes, the he will protect it. My female friends have heard about his disaster capitalist advisors and they think Obama intends to bail out his hedge fund donors with Social Security. He has to make clear he will do no such thing and will not permit the Republicans to try.

Mostly he needs to cut the bullying and DEMONSTRATE that he is capable of dealing with women on the basis of mutual respect. Right now it don't look good.

[ Parent ]
I will admit I can't see things from a woman's perspective, but... (2.29 / 7)
"I really get the impression that Obama just plain does not respect women. "

I think this is irrational.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Built into your very statement is the problem we are facing (4.00 / 9)
What you just said is: I don't understand you therefore you're irrational.

Women hate being called irrational, hysterical, emotional etc for very good cause and for many reasons--besides finding it insulting, women have been undermined for generations by being labeled mentally incompetent (while being forced to wear suffocating clothing I might add).

I think for the same reasons that many whites don't understand racial issues, many men don't understand gender issues. Because whites/men have held power for so long and so deeply, we don't see the racial/gender charge these types of situations have.

For me, a white/male, I don't really see this race as gendered. One candidate lost to the other, and I think it is because one positioned themselves as an insider and one positioned themselves as an outsider.

But when the gender issue is discussed, I certainly do understand that perspective.

Be open to what you don't understand.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
I understand what you're saying here (4.00 / 6)
and I probably should have used a word other than irrational, but what I was trying to say is that even though I can't see things from her perspective, I can't imagine her coming to her conclusions even when trying to reconcile them with her perspective.

When you understand that Obama was raised by a strong, independent woman, who he obviously admires a great deal.  Considering the type of woman he decided to marry, and the respect he has given Hillary Clinton in the course of this campaign, speaking of how she is an inspiration and is breaking barriers for even his own daughters, to take an offhand comment where he calls a reporter "sweetie", and concluding from that that he just doesn't respect women doesn't seem like a conclusion that is grounded in a full view of who Obama is.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
I agree with AliceDem (3.33 / 6)
1.  Obama had and as far as I know has not have one women in the top echelon of his campaign.  Edwards had about 40%. with Hillary it was of course a majority.

That is major clue...that tells you a lot about him and who he looks to and and who he listens to and whose eyes he sees the world through.

2. I have always thought and I say this a mother, that he has a very odd and conflicted relationship with his mother.
His book is about the father who abandoned him....not the mother who nurtured him. He decided to stay in Hawaii, that was his decision, in essence abandoning her...and when she was ill and he knew she was ill he didn't get back to see her.  

Some men are not condescending saying sweetie, however usually these days they're 80 yrs old...but he was condescending and it's just of a piece with the "You're likable enough Hillary." line.

You know you have to stop doubting women's perceptions of the world...stop calling it irrational...because that's not how you see the world....that's the point...this is how the world is to us and how it's seen by us. We are the arbiter of our world...not you.



"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
reality (4.00 / 2)

1.  Obama had and as far as I know has not have one women in the top echelon of his campaign.  Edwards had about 40%. with Hillary it was of course a majority.
That is major clue...that tells you a lot about him and who he looks to and and who he listens to and whose eyes he sees the world through.

Off the top of my head, he has a close friend he brought in a while ago...can't remember her first name but her last name is Jarrett and an article he doesn't make any big decisions without consulting her first.

Also, does anyone really think Michelle Obama isn't a key advisor?

You had Samantha Power....there's Susan Rice.....,etc.

2. I have always thought and I say this a mother, that he has a very odd and conflicted relationship with his mother.
His book is about the father who abandoned him....not the mother who nurtured him. He decided to stay in Hawaii, that was his decision, in essence abandoning her...and when she was ill and he knew she was ill he didn't get back to see her.  

So he didn't love his mother and "abandoned" her...?!? And you know for a fact (you were in the room) that "when she was ill and he knew she was ill he didn't get back to see her"?!?

And you can say this by....prefacing at as "I say this a mother"?

You know you have to stop doubting women's perceptions of the world...stop calling it irrational...because that's not how you see the world....that's the point...this is how the world is to us and how it's seen by us. We are the arbiter of our world...not you.

Just because someone doubts your perceptions, this doesn't mean that they are degrading your gender. Since when did a single woman speak for all women? (I guess since Al Sharpton started speaking for all black people) What about the women that support Obama? Are they degrading themselves and their gender?

[ Parent ]
yes it does (0.00 / 0)
Just because someone doubts your perceptions, this doesn't mean that they are degrading your gender.

Doubting any person's perceptions of how they SEE the world is doubting them as a individual....and then when you are applying it to an entire gender it is the same.

Indeed this very issue was much discussed in the women's movement when it first began.....because the best way to deny the truth, urgency and necessity of making women's lives and how to make them better...is to do what you (generically you) just did...deny the validity of someone's one feeling about the world....It is just a typical tactic that has been used against women over and over.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Samantha Power (4.00 / 3)
Was/is a giant.  I'm hoping she gets back in the mix at some point.

There's also the force that is Michelle Obama.

I moved by this thread.  The sweetie video is at least as creepy as anything I've been creeped-out by Clinton-wise.

Makes me feel like joining an empathy brigade to make peace and reconciliation calls to random Clinton-backers.

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
I am talking about who runs his campaign not his issue advisors (0.00 / 0)
He needs them on staff running his campaign...  

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Not necessarily (0.00 / 0)
Not understanding doesn't inherently preclude irrationality.

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
It is irrational (0.00 / 0)
I used to think this trait was almost exclusively found in the male population that supports Bush--the irrational, emotional, male dunderheads. It is virtually impossible to reason with them. But maybe it is just a human characteristic and not about gender at all. Just imagine, women willing to loose the Supreme Court for 30 years because Obama used the word "sweetie."

I really don't know how to engage people who extrapolate reality exclusively from their feelings. It's too narcissistic. There isn't much room for common understanding. These times are too dangerous to worry about "our" feelings. It's time for some rationality. The women I know, in Hillary's demographic, are not falling into this self-indulgent trap.

[ Parent ]
HIS hedge fund donors? (2.00 / 2)
I agree with most of what you say, as per my post just below, but you don't think that as Senator from New York she doesn't have even more hedge fund donors than he has?  Why do you think she voted for the bankruptcy bill?  She is and always has been very solicitous of the financial sector in general, and Chelsea works for (or worked for) a hedge fund, after all.  This part is not realistic, although as I also posted, Social Security is, along with reproductvie rights, one of the top issues to talk about to them.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
How ironic we have degenerated into this. (4.00 / 4)
We're still doing this:

Well she....

Yeah but he...

No she.....

But he really....

Oh no she really...

This started as conversation about how to appeal to a core demographic and we're sliding into the very mudslinging alienating that demographic. How ironic.



We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Don't "we" me . . . (0.00 / 0)
This is a great bridge-building post with mostly full-on boss comments.  You're bummin' my high.  

It's always easy to justify disappointment with human affairs, if that's your wont.

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
She didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill (4.00 / 2)
Just tonight at a local political club in NY, Cong. Jerry Nadler, one of the most progressive Dems in Congress,  who since 1997 led the fight against the bankruptcy bill said that in 2000 with the urging of Hillary Clinton they got Bill Clinton to veto the 2000 version of the bankruptcy bill!.

You are mischaraterizing her and her positions.  On any meaningful policy positon she has a better position than he does....from Social security to healthcare.

And so he has lobbyist as bundlers. big dif!..the lobbyist issue is such a phony issue.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Doesn't respect women? (4.00 / 9)
I agree with your point about the netroots. Quite frankly the netroots for too long has been a bunch of white guys talking their favorite issues.

However Obama? The guy who was raised by his mom and his grandma? Who married Michelle Robinson? Have you read his books (Dreams of My Father more specifically). Have you read about his background? Are we talking about the same Barack Obama?

Obama's deputy campaign manager ran the anti-privatization campaign. You think he would sign on to the campaign of a guy who was going to screw Social Security?

I just don't know were you are getting these things.

Obama has been working side by side with women on the basis of mutual respect for his entire life. I'm willing to hear a case about how he isn't but respectfully I just don't get where you are getting that impression.


John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
Just a question (4.00 / 6)
   If I don't support Hillary Clinton because of her Iraq War vote, her affiliations with the DLC, and her gushing praise of John McCain, does that make me a misogynist?

  Could Clinton supporters perhaps entertain the idea that many of us don't like Hillary for perfectly legitimate, issue-oriented reasons?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Only if... (3.00 / 4)
you realize that opposition to Obama might not always be based on racism.
[ Parent ]
I doubt (4.00 / 5)
you could find someone who thought here opposed Obama beacuse of racism.

Yes there are a few people who oppose him beacuse of racisim

And there are a few people that oppose Clinton beacuse of sexism.

But a vast majority of suporters on both sides support their candidate for completely different reasons.  

John McCain: Beacuse lobbyists should have more power

[ Parent ]
That's ridiculous (2.00 / 2)
That guy in no way implied that opposition to Obama was based upon racism.  

This is so typical of the crap that Clinton and some of her supporters have pulled throughout this election.  

The guy was making a point about how there are plenty of legitimate non-sexist reasons not to supports HRC.  And the response is to demand that he withdraw a charge that he did not make.  


John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  

[ Parent ]
From the Open Left User Manual (4.00 / 4)
"Troll" a comment that breaks the rules

Unless it breaks the rules to point out that Clinton supporters might have legitimate reasons for not supporting Obama (that have nothing to do with racism), you are certainly not helping your candidate unite the party.

[ Parent ]
Trolling (4.00 / 2)
The only rule on substance I saw was "be excellent to others."  

However, OpenLeft tends to be a more intellectly minded blog than sites like Kos or MyDD.  It is pretty trollish behavior to respond to a comment by accusing the commenter of holding a position that could not be logically implied from their statement in order to avoid defending your position.

This is the big leagues and I will troll rate you for intellectual dishonesty, if I think it was intentional.  

John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  

[ Parent ]
OOOO (3.00 / 4)
Big league Troll rating!

Like in a vat, with jello?

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
Iraq war vote is a legitimate disagreement (0.00 / 0)
but Obama has gushingly praised McCain in the past....and his policies in actuality are more DLC than her actaul policies

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Turning Social Security Funds Over to Hedge Funds for Management?!? (4.00 / 2)
What a completely bizarre idea. Where in the world does this insane speculation come from?

If progressives are going to offer a principled alternative to the Bush-Cheney administration, we need to agree to limit our political discourse with progressives who hold different opinions to the boundaries of the "reality-based" community and to use reality based sources. One of the reasons that some Obama supporters have gotten so mad at some of Clinton's supporters has been the frequency of extreme statements like these connections of Obama with "disaster capitalism" advisers and with turning SSA Trust Funds over to hedge fund managers. These statements, like many other charges and innuendos directed at Obama, are made without a shred of support in any Obama campaign source or in any other reality-based source.

I know that Obama has taken a lot of $$ from hedge fund managers who cheat the nation out of paying their fare share of taxes by having all their enormous incomes taxed at capital gains rates. Their campaign contributions are thought to have bought continued protection for the managers from fair tax rates on their income. But I have never heard any speculation about Obama supporting the investing of Social Security Trust Funds in hedge funds. He has vigorously opposed Bush's privatization initiative. His campaign website emphasizes revising the payroll tax caps, etc., to improve the solvency of Social Security. See

http://www.barackobama.com/iss...

I have no disrespect for Senator Clinton or her supporters; I only have great disappointment that she has gone so far negative for the last three-plus months. But the suggestion that Obama would undermine the stability of Social Security investments by allowing hedge fund managers to make bets with the Trust Funds is not only negative, it strikes me as paranoid to the nth degree.

If there are any non-troll, non-wing-nut posts that have speculated that Obama would even consider such a risky path as giving hedge fund managers the chance to make bets using SSA Trust Funds, please link to them in a comment so that we can all find them and debunk this bizarre speculation.

You attribute the sentences about Obama's potential policies on Social Security in your comment to your "female friends" who

... have heard about his disaster capitalist advisors and they think Obama intends to bail out his hedge fund donors with Social Security. He has to make clear he will do no such thing and will not permit the Republicans to try.

But Obama doesn't have any "disaster capitalist" advisers. A search of Naomi Klein's website for "Obama & disaster capitalism" turned up zero references." In fact the only reference to Obama's having "creepy disaster capitalism crowd" anywhere on the web is on the following blog page:

http://d2route.wordpress.com/2...

As a source, d2route links to the following article:

http://louisproyect.wordpress....

The problem with this link is that the linked article by Louis Proyect: "The Unrepentant Marxist," discusses some of Obama's economic advisers, but Proyect does not allege that any of the advisers are part of the "creepy disaster capitalism crowd." The article does not mention "disaster capitalism" at all, much less connect any of Obama's advisers with that school of thought. One of Obama's advisers, Austan Goolsbee (of the infamous Canadian consulate NAFTA clusterf@ck) is at the University of Chicago, birthplace of disaster capitalism, but the article describes Goolsbee as having the same style of analysis as Steven Levitt, also at U of Chicago, author of the iconoclastic set of studies published in Freakonomics.

Insisting that Obama make a public statement to "make clear" that he will never turn SSA Trust Funds over to hedge fund managers is very much like asking a candidate, "and when did you stop beating your wife?" No reasonable candidate would dignify such a bizarre thought with a response, unless and until such a notion was actually introduced into the national campaign dialogue by some pundit.

I was ticked off, as you were, by Obama's brushing off a female reporter last week, calling her "sweetie." But he did promptly apologize. Since your posts and comments on OpenLeft indicate that you are pretty darn progressive, including on women's issues, you really would be cutting off your nose to spite your face to boycott the Obama campaign. Whatever Obama's shortcomings in respecting women and/or on support for women's issues (he has been endorsed by NARAL, after all), he's somewhere between 50 and 100 years ahead of the attitudes toward women and women's issues that John McCain holds!  

[ Parent ]
Can Michelle Obama Help in this case? (0.00 / 0)
From what I see/hear of her, she seems to be an equal partner in the couple and they have mutual respect, no?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
No. (4.00 / 2)
"But he has a cool wife" is not a feminist argument. In fact it's just annoying and I wish people would quit saying it.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Not exactly my point (4.00 / 1)
I was wondering if her perspective as a woman might be a way to connect with other women.  

But, I can see from other posts that Michelle Obama is not respected by some of the other posters here because she had to think about whether she'd support Clinton, or not.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Sorry. (4.00 / 2)
I shouldn't have been snarky.

It's just the "wife" approach, for me at least, reminds me of the argument that was used to keep us from voting for so long -- that women didn't need votes of their own because we were (or should be) married to men, who could vote.

This is kind of like that, because it's saying "women don't need to have political power, they only need to marry powerful men, because look how well it worked out for this woman who married a powerful man!"

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Marrying into powerful families is an age old method (4.00 / 2)
of gaining power, political or otherwise.  All genders have used these means.

Its true that Hillary Clinton gains something from her husband's political power, but its NOT true that she "married power" in the same way that John McCain married money.  She was, in fact, a very significant player in allowing Bill Clinton to acquire the stature that now accrues her some benefit. (There are negatives that come with "being a Clinton" as well, so this is a double-edged sword, to be sure.)

I had hoped that Hillary Clinton might have used the kind of sexist biases that have been expressed here as an opportunity to open a public discourse on the issues (Something along the lines of Obama's speech during the Rev. Wright dust-up).  Not just because it give any particular politician another chance to make a speech, rather because it provides the basis for a fuller discussion in the public squares, and places like this.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Agreed (4.00 / 12)
As a Silent Generation woman for Obama, I understand where these women are coming from.  Obama has some fence-mending to do.  But the way is not by picking Hillary for Veep it is by accentuating the issues, such as reproductive rights, the war and Social Security, on which they differ most with McCain.  I do believe that the overwhelming majority of Boomer women will come around, as Lefties did in voting for Humphrey in 1968.  

But that "sweetie" comment was really retro.  Maybe Michelle can explain to him that it is equivalent to him being called "boy".

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
And do these women know .. (0.00 / 0)
that McCain called his wife a c-nt?  .. not trying to defend Obama here .. but just thinking out loud
[ Parent ]
Well that's all right then... (4.00 / 4)
....just tell women about McCain's c**t remark and Obama's problems are solved.

How do you roll your eyes in ascii?

[ Parent ]
Voting is a complex fate (4.00 / 4)
I was a lefty who voted for Nixon in 1968 because Humphrey wouldn't disavow the war. Anyone else remember Humphrey's "politics of joy" that year? This is the vote that has always haunted me. Perhaps people like me made the difference that year, a difference that still resonates in our politics today.

I think this thread shows that feelings are just as deep right now. We can't assume that Clinton voters will necessarily come around. Obama voters need to listen to what they have to say and take their points seriously, however uncomfortable that may make them feel. The morality of this race has been complex, with bad faith, hurtful words, and unconscious prejudices emanating from both sides.

But for God's sake, as flawed as we all are, we need to win in November!

[ Parent ]
I think as we put more focus on McCain (4.00 / 1)
he will just become too unpalatable a choice for even the most frustrated Clinton supporter. After all, in '68 Nixon was promising he had a plan to end the war. McCain wants the war to last 100 years, and he wants to appoint Supreme Court justices that will overturn Roe v. Wade.

But that still means the female voters Clinton brought out might just stay home instead of vote for Obama.

I think time will heal some wounds, but I also think continued effort to respect what Clinton's candidacy represented, even if some think the candidate herself or the way she campaigned was too flawed to admire is important.

Half of the citizens of this country and more than half of the Democratic party have been waiting an awfully long time to see one of their own make it to the point that Hillary Clinton seemed poised to achieve less than a year ago.  

I think a wonderful and effective response Obama could make would be to campaign especially hard in the fall for female congressional candidates who will become the potential femal presidential candidates of tomorrow.  We need more progressives, women candidates tend to be progressive -- it's a win, win situation...

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance


[ Parent ]
why'd you vote for nixon (0.00 / 0)
instead of somebody else?  i'm writing from curiosity mainly, because i wasn't alive then.  but the thing that always gets me is that it's perfectly legitimate to not vote for someone - but then why vote for the other candidate?

I think all the people who are annoyed at Obama on issues relating to women should withdraw their support from McCain or Obama until they articulate, as mimi stated above, stronger position on women's rights issues.  not only will this make sure that women's rights are part of the campaign (and more pertinently public discourse), but it might end up helping Obama in the general election (i would guess that focusing on women's rights is a really good way to help people make a more informed decision about whether to vote for obama, mccain, or someone else) and help continue to build a progressive social and electoral coalition.

[ Parent ]
I did think that Nixon (4.00 / 1)
was more likely to end the Vietnam war than Humphrey was. I was looking at the model of De Gaulle and Algeria. I put more stock in American conservatism in those days than I do now.
[ Parent ]
Mimi...Humphrey lost (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
They won't come home because to these women the Democratic party is not home (4.00 / 3)
they are not hardcore Dems they were Hillary Clinton supporters.....from those who usually never vote to Independents and republicans.

Dan Bennett of ARG pointed out that Hillary by the end of this process actually brought more new people into the process than she did.

They are angry. Matt is right.  We remember being passed over for younger, less qualified men.  that describes Obama perfectly. I remember applying for jobs and literally being told that women were not allowed to apply.  I couldn't get a credit card in my own name.

And these women don't like Michelle Obama. she is not a help or have you forgotten when she said she would have to think about supporting Hillary is she were the nominee?

Look at the next post and see Chris admitting that the electoral map in contention is the 2000 and 2004 map...not the new map all the Obama fans have been expecting.  On this map....even now Hillary Clinton is at 300 electoral votes, while Obama is struggling.   She is the stronger nominee.

And if they push her out before she agrees it's over then you can kiss those women goodbye...Me, I don't vote for republicans and I always vote, I don't stay home...but by large numbers they will.

I have noted many times in comments on this blog anecdotally what this poll demonstrates.  I have been pooh poohed.

If she isn't either the nominee or the VP nominee then I think the Democratic party and Obama are in real danger of losing the White House.  He is the weaker candidate and always was..... And he has mishandled terribly how his campaign and its supporters have dealt with her and her supporters.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
How exactly has his campaign delat with her and her supporters? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
What? .. (4.00 / 6)
We remember being passed over for younger, less qualified men.  that describes Obama perfectly.

She wasn't passed over.  When this whole process started, she was the prohibitive favorite.  So what happened?  He wasn't handed a damn thing.  She didn't take him seriously at all is what happened.  She thought her connections and name would let her waltz to the nomination.  He used to be a community organizer.  Did she not know what that meant?  Did she not learn anything about him in the two years together in the Senate(before this process started)?  If Obama had anything handed to him, it was handed to him by Hillary.  In the end she has only herself to blame.  Why?  She was the one that hired Mark Penn.  She was the one that valued loyalty over competence.  Are you going to win friends and influence people by having jackasses like James Carville and Lanny Davis around?

[ Parent ]
Her campaign also handled their (0.00 / 0)
finances rather badly.
[ Parent ]
I'm mad too... (4.00 / 10)
Well Deb, I'm probably about the same age as you judging from your post. But part of my memories is working to change things. And part of the change was power, getting and using power. When I was told that the union I wanted to join didn't allow women, I made an appointment with the president of the union and told him I was going to sue the union, right after I went to the press. They let us in. I didn't cry about it, I challenged it.

I was originally an Edwards supporter, and then took awhile to decide to support Obama. And it had nothing to do with anything that Hillary had done. I just decided to go with the young people and hope they would gain their own power.

But as I have watched what has happened with Hillary's campaign I have been appalled at the implied victimhood that these other women have been spouting. They're mad? I've reached a point that I just don't give a crap if they are mad. Sometimes you lose.

Michelle Obama, if you go listen to her was asked last winter if she would be willing to "work" to support Hillary and then she said she would have to think about it. Funny how one word can change the whole sentence isn't it?

So, I'm an over 60, white woman, living on SS and I have just been astounded at how other women have acted. I'm surprised and ashamed and finally pissed as hell.

And it is simply your opinion that Obama is the weak candidate, yet you state it as if it's a truth. Well, I don't agree. I think he's the strongest candidate because, unlike Hillary, he's tried not to be divisive, which is a hell of a lot more then I can say about her.  

[ Parent ]
what is the point of this statement from you. Idon't get it (0.00 / 0)
Michelle Obama, if you go listen to her was asked last winter if she would be willing to "work" to support Hillary and then she said she would have to think about it. Funny how one word can change the whole sentence isn't it?

That is not gracious nor does it bring the party together....in fact I find it wholly unadmirable....Not once has Hillary clinton said or intimated any such thing....she has always said that when we have a nomnee whe will work wholeheartedly to win in NOvember.

She's divisive???? If Obama wants a united party then he better stop being divisive.....and then my other opposite reaction is divisive...shmivise...it's a meaningless word espeically from a man who only thinks other people's actions are divisive and not his.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
She ran a campaign that suffered from many problems (4.00 / 1)
and she started the race as the "inevitable" nominee.

Even with the demonstratable instances of sexism, I don't see how such equates with "being passed over".  


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Silver Lining? (4.00 / 2)
I don't think so.

First, the "boomer" women (like me) are finally fed up with the patronizing, minimizing, denying, dismissing. We DO care about these issues, but there are - frankly - other ways for us to show our concern about these issues outside of the Democratic Party.

Second, this isn't a temporary problem, fellas. A lot of us have given huge amounts of time and money to the Democratic Party (and its candidates and issues) for YEARS. We've been promised, patronized, told to wait, thrown bones every now and then. We've done the things we have been told we needed to do to be part of the power structure. And we've waited...and waited...and waited...

Third, Michelle Obama doesn't cut it, either. She sat on national television and said she'd have to "think about it" when asked if she would support HRC as the nominee. Nope. She doesn't cut it.

Fourth, Obama's own sexism keeps showing up (in addition to that of David Plouffe and others in his campaign). Apparently, in spite of the new "vision" thing Obama waxes on about, he and his campaign have some pretty bad attitudes and behaviors from "old" style politics when it comes to women. And, there's this: Seen any prominent women managing his campaign? Doing anything other than glorified secretarial work? Nope.

Women have had it - with Obama, with his surrogates, with his supporters/followers, and with the Democratic Party.

Guilt trips aren't about to work this time. So don't.even.try.it.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for your clarity (4.00 / 1)
I've had a hard time following your logic in past posts, but this is very clear and concise.  You haven't changed my mind about supporting Obama, but I can see the logic in your decision.  You've opened my eyes, and for that I thank you again.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Okay. You're Angry. We get it. (4.00 / 1)
And we men know as well as women that anger can be a powerful motivator.  But all that righteous anger will have been dished in vain if it is (mis)directed at Obama.

Rather than disputing point by point, suffice to say that, as was already noted above, Obama does have many powerful women around him, most notably Valerie Jarrett and of course, Michelle.

Speaking of whom, perhaps you should actually read or listen to what she actually said before concluding that she "doesn't cut it." And are you really going to base your vote on something a candidate's spouse said?  Isn't that what Republicans do?  Isn't that what led to all the Hillary hate in the first place?

[ Parent ]
I'll Try (4.00 / 1)
So, your response to not having a female nominee for President is to ensure that Roe v. Wade is overturned and remains so for the next 20-30 years?  

I'm not going to repeat them, but every argument that applied against Nader applies here.  We are still living with those results today, and we will for as long as John Roberts and Sam Alito remain on the court.  

I've got to tell you (and this is really somethig for a longer post), but I really think that the Boomer generation is the most narcisistic and destructive generation this country has ever known.  

This is a generation that could not vote when the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act were passed (you guys did not lead or play a major role in the Civil Rights movement), you protested going to war and flashed your principled only for as long as they served your own interests.  Once the 1980s came around, the vast majority of you moved on to Reagan and lower taxes at the expense of your children.  The Boomers didn't even support Bill Clinton (his pluralities came from the young and the old).  Now, it's once again the Boomers in the Democratic Party that are threatening to install yet another Republican President, because we didn't give you your way.  

And who will it hurt?  Not you.  You'll have Social Security and Medicare for the rest of your lives.  Boomers know they don't need a long term solution to health care, because they'll be covered by Medicare.  Social Security won't go bankrupt in your lifetime.  You guys don't care if others die in Iraq.  You'll never need an abortion or the helping hand that affirmative action represents for so many deserving people.  Global warming probably won't radically change the planet in your lifetimes.  

If your parents were the Greatest Generation, it's becoming increasingly clear that your are the Worst Generation.  I'll bet that book is coming soon.  


John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  

[ Parent ]
So, what do you do? (4.00 / 3)
Seriously?  They are only content with one solution, overturn the will of the voters and install Hillary by force.  We're not going to do that...

I don't know how to resolve it... and Hillary seems to have no interest in resolving it.

I think the only option at this point is to make sure they know how awful McCain would be for the causes they believe in.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
you solve it (4.00 / 8)
by not calling Hillary evil and all kinds of other names just because she has been playing hardball politics this spring.

New York's a tough town, and so is Chicago. Obama won. When your guy is winning, you don't need to rub it in the faces of people who supported the loser.

Hillary is not evil. She is not the enemy.

I have spent too much time at Daily Kos arguing with people who have lost all perspective when it comes to Clinton.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
I think that's true but..... (4.00 / 1)
There really is a big difference between Daily Kos and the rest of the world. I doubt that most Hillary's supporters are interacting Obama people in their daily lives that call her evil or a b*tch. Certainly the Obama campaign is not saying anything like that.  
[ Parent ]
not just DK (0.00 / 0)
Dozens of digital bullies coming from the Obama site invade even the most obscure Hillary blogs with nasty comments. Hillary bloggers, not just the well known ones, have been subject to cyber bullying on a massive scale.

Don't tell me that Hillary supporters have said mean things about Obama, very likely they have, but they do not stage invasions of Obama blogs for the purpose of doing so.

[ Parent ]
The girl who authored that post didn't do anything .. (0.00 / 0)
who ever commented on that blog post(at Obama's site) .. linked to it
[ Parent ]
How do you know this? (0.00 / 0)
. . . but they do not stage invasions of Obama blogs for the purpose of doing so.


The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.
[ Parent ]
Yeah (4.00 / 2)
Everyone does need to start toning things way, way down.  I've been kind of amazed how nasty things have stayed around these parts from both sides.
[ Parent ]
maybe sometimes evil-ish? (4.00 / 3)
I've been really mad at Hillary.  I think the last few months have been destructive.  In my opinion, Hillary's behavior, particularly her endorsement of McCain's patriotic gravitas, has diminished the chances of the Democratic candidate taking the presidency this cycle.

That said, tonight's post and commentary has push me away from  taking that anger to Hillary's supporters, even the most frothing-at-the-mouth-iest.  I see why some could love her and I'm OK with it.

The everyday people of the whole earth are ready to run the sphere in peace.

[ Parent ]
We DO Know... (4.00 / 1)
We aren't stupid, you know.

The problem is, a hell of a lot of us just don't care anymore. And, really, it has less to do with being "sore losers" about Hillary's campaign and much more to do with how every major player this year has fueled and led the sexist assaults on Clinton, on us, on our concerns and needs.

I fail to grasp what it is YOU don't understand. You seem to get it about "racism" and how that hurts AAs and those who care about civil rights, but you just don't get what the misogyny is or has been, why it matters, why we are angry, and why we would abandon the Democratic Party for something "else" this year.

We're not fools. Most of us would NEVER vote for John McCain. But don't kid yourselves: We have options and we have other ways to organize, raise funds, contribute, get involved in issues/concerns WE support and care about. It just means Democrats won't be getting our support in the presidential election. And you can be sure that DNC members, party leaders, SDs who did not speak up and step in to take on the WOMEN HATING that has occurred will end up paying for it down the road and down the line...

[ Parent ]
Empathy. (4.00 / 2)
   I don't think they want empathy.  I think they want Hillary to be the nominee.  Obama and Hillary are running in the same imperfect society.  Hillary has been a victim of misogyny and sexism.  There I said it.  Will that make her boomer supporters feel better?  Care to ask Geraldine Ferraro about that one?
  I can't buy your arguments which characterize "many Obama supporters."  Straw men.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
no, I think they recognize (4.00 / 2)
she is not getting the nomination.

They are angry when people they once liked and respected start calling Hillary a "sociopath" or worse, just because she ran hard against Obama. The freaking former chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, Gordon Fischer, has at his blog approvingly quoted a post by Andrew Sullivan of all people, referring to the Clintons as sociopaths.

Do you spend time at Daily Kos at all? The more outlandish and colorful the insulting remark about Hillary, the more recs the comment will get. Practically every day there is the obligatory "Hillary is evil and I'll never vote for her if she steals the nomination" diary sitting on the rec list with hundreds of tips.

Diaries bashing Hillary get more recs and more comments, and usually stay on the rec list longer, than diaries making a positive case for Obama. That's a noticeable trend ever since Super Tuesday.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
What?! (4.00 / 7)
    White boomer women aren't supporting Obama because of the meanies on the internet?!  That's absurd.  White boomer women are too savvy for that nonsense.  There's plenty of nasty stuff out there for all candidates.  Anyone who takes it personally needs to disengage for a while.  This is a problem that is not related to the poltergeists of the internet.  I think Geraldine Ferraro is on the minds of many women.  She's an important figure.  
   You have a lot of anecdotes.  I too have many anecdotes about the unsavory comments of Hillary supporters, but that doesn't make me hate Hillary.  I think we need to let Hillary supporters cool down for a while.  When I lose I don't want sympathy from my opponent immediately, that would just make me spiteful.  But Hillary Clinton is not letting this cool down at all, she is turning up the heat.  I'm not going to help her do that.    

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
not just the internet (0.00 / 0)
Hillary was compared to a stalker for crying out loud. I hope the women of Kentucky never let Steve Cohen forget he was such  a jerk.
[ Parent ]
First of all... (4.00 / 2)
Steve Cohen is from Tennessee, not Kentucky.  And despite this admittedly boneheaded and disrespectful comment, he is the best and most progressive congressman to be elected from his district in a loooooooong time.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
Tennessee (0.00 / 0)
my mistake

comparing a woman Presidential candidate to a stalker, how progressive

[ Parent ]
Well... (4.00 / 3)
"comparing a woman Presidential candidate to a stalker, how progressive"

compared to Harold Ford...

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Tit for tat is not helpful (0.00 / 0)
We can play that game all night (i.e. hard working americans = white americans).
[ Parent ]
Exactly. (0.00 / 0)
   It's all Steve Cohen's fault.  Got it.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
respect (4.00 / 2)
Women want respect, why is this so difficult to understand sweetie?
[ Parent ]
Heads I Win, Tails You Lose (4.00 / 8)
They are angry when people they once liked and respected start calling Hillary a "sociopath" or worse, just because she ran hard against Obama.

Seems like this statement only has any impact because you very carefully picked your words. For example-- calling Hillary a sociopath? In other words, running hard against her? Unreasonably hard against her, unproductively hard against her, sure. But things just doesn't sound very balanced here. If Clinton runs hard against Obama, even unreasonably, unproductively hard, that is her reserved right and we are not to criticize it; if Obama supporters run hard back, that is horrible and divisive and going to split the party.

And of course even if we grant, okay, there's been nastiness on both sides, nastiness is bad whether it's for a candidate you like or dislike and we need to reconcile-- it's still not balanced. Because what we're doing here is balancing "running too hard" statements made by the Clinton campaign against statements made by anonymous Obama supporters-- in other words, both sides are worked up about offensive comments, but the Obama supporters are worked up by offensive comments made by the Clintons and the Clinton supporters are worked up by offensive comments made by the Obama supporters.

In other words, when we give examples of how nasty the Obama camp has become we are allowed to dredge up and get upset at the worst, most vile examples of human nature one can find up on the internet that just happen to manifest themselves in the form of hating Hillary Clinton. We're not using the same worst-case-scenario standard to gauge the behavior this cycle of the Clinton camp. Actually, why don't we try that?

Here's some choice quotes from the first post and comments on Hillary Is 44 right now; in this thread Nancy Pelosi, due to her assertions that the nomination campaign needs to be wrapped up before the nomination, is-- wait for it-- called a sociopath:

The Katherine Harris of this election cycle - Nancy Pelosi -is making threats...

Nancy Pelosi increasingly sounds like the drag-queen director of "The Producers" stomping his foot calling for "order, we must have order" while rehearsing the big musical number "Springtime For Hitler". The drag-queen director, like Nancy Pelosi, completely unaware of the irony of what he is saying...

Back to D. I want to puke every time I see Pelosi. This woman is vile. She is ugly, can't utter a complete sentence, a typical pink code type of women politician. I may sound harsh on women, but why the hell would women want this trash to represent them?? She makes George W. Bush look positive...

Pelosi is exactly why I believe the first woman president won't come from the democratic party. Voters want a tough-minded woman as their Commander-in-Chief, but those male wimpy 'progressives' keep on giving us Pelosi type, the weirdest face of women. Peolosi is truly an insult to all women...

confloyd, I think Pelosi has a Napoleon complex (or whatever the equivalent is for women). She's trying to prove she's the baddest woman on the block, when we all know Hillary could clean her clock.

What is my point here? Well, I think it's clear Clinton has received unfair treatment from some quarters this campaign. I think it's clear that there are somethingth-wave feminists who have dreamed of a female president their whole lives and can reasonably be personally upset that the first viable go at electing one didn't pan out. I think it's clear we need to figure out a way to target the people who've been attacking Clinton in a sexist manner, and find a way to heal the pain of the people who are upset their candidate didn't win.

But it's not fair to judge the Clinton or Obama campaigns and the state of the campaign itself by what some nuts on DailyKos or some other blog said; and you're not going to get this healing you want by blaming Obama supporters for the fact Clinton supporters are angry. If your goal is to reconcile disparate factions of the Democratic Party, I don't think you're going to get very far by starting off attacking a faction of the Democratic Party.

[ Parent ]
There's a difference between running hard (4.00 / 1)
and rubbing it in after the race is over, as it is now.  The more extreme subset of both Obama and Clinton supporters need to chill the hell out.
[ Parent ]
I agree, except: (4.00 / 2)
1) We don't all agree the race is over. Once that happens, I think we'll see more chill.
2) Supporters (unlike the campaigns themselves) are largely fueled by heat. Also, people are assholes. And huge groups of peoples, like Obama supporters and Clinton supporters, always contain certain numbers of really abusive assholes.

The real questions, I think, are: What can each campaign do at this moment to help us chill? And, how do we convince them to do so?

[ Parent ]
Sociopath? ... (0.00 / 0)
Don't forget one of the people that was named calling Hillary that .. Andrew Sullivan for crying out loud .. he's not a Democrat .. shit .. the dude isn't even a US citizen .. much less registered to vote
[ Parent ]
sigh (4.00 / 3)
anybody remember back far enough to when you thought policy might make the difference in an election?

John McCain opposes the GI Bill.
[ Parent ]
She didn't run hard... (4.00 / 1)
...she ran dirty, which is why so many people have VERY hard feelings for her.  I've never seen a primary where a candidate had been so ruthlessly attacked with the "kitchen sink"  That stuff is supposed to be saved for Republicans, not other Democrats.

I would say the exact same thing if the situation were reversed.  I'm not wedded to my candidate, but the "kitchen sink" is unacceptable under any circumstances.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
I've just read about a dozen posts in this thread (0.00 / 0)
and I can say confidently that there is no reasonable discussion that is going to occur here. Ardent candidate partisans are not worth the time of day.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
I don't think Ferraro is representative (4.00 / 2)
She was always more conservative than most Dem women, and has a blind spot, to put it charitably, on racial issues.  

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
That's what I think. (0.00 / 0)
  But isn't she important for women because she was the first female vice presidential nominee?  I honestly don't know, because I'm just one of those young men who voted for the black dude because he's totally bitchin'.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Some yes, some not so much (4.00 / 3)
At the risk of getting clobbered here, as a run-of-the-mill House member, she wasn't really a standout candidate.  Dianne Feinstein, Mayor of SF, was Mondale's forst pick, but he was concerned about her husband's extensive businessw dealings, so he picked Ferraro (and then saw his campaign dogged by allegations about HIS business dealings).  But we really sort of knew then that she wasn't qualified and had been picked to make a point.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Then Take A Peek Online... (4.00 / 1)
If you don't understand "many Obama supporters." Follow any of the letters/comments threads; read the posts/articles by bloggers at Daily Kos, HuffPost, and elsewhere, then tell me it isn't "many Obama supporters."

As usual and is with every other left blogging institution these days, you seem to have your heads somewhere else (or you just don't give a damn about the rampant women-hating that goes on day-in and day-out by Obama's supporters.

[ Parent ]
I will judge my candidate by their internet supporters! (4.00 / 1)
I thought identity politics was sad and pathetic, but this whole internet bullying crap deciding what candidate you will support in the GE really makes me weep for this country.

To all the crybabies whining about so-and-so's supporters both on the internet and in real life need to go spend some time over at the comment threads at Little Green Footballs or Free Republic or spend some time at a College Republicans meeting.  If you want to play this silly game, just understand that  whining about taking your ball home over the the 'sexism' and 'racism' on lefty blogs and amongst Clinton or Obama supporters is done to the direct benefit of people who daily cheer for the murders of gays, blacks, and women.  Our counterparts on the right, those people who make comments on blogs, have evil in their hearts.  They don't just want to see brown people in the Middle East slain in the name of vengeance, they want women back in the house and out of the public eye, they want blacks at the back of bus, they want gays dead.  The Republican party isn't half as evil as the sickos who troll their hatred on the comment boards in right blogistan.

To those of us much further to the left Obama and Clinton are hardly ideal candidates. This hardening of attitudes between supporters of these two virtual carbon copy centrists is maddening when compared to the outright disaster that is John McCain.  

[ Parent ]
So much is lost... (4.00 / 14)
over the stupidity surrounding the identity politics that the media fed to these people for so many months. There is one huge reason why she lost this nomination: she voted for the Iraq War. That was a big gut check for a lot of people and she failed miserably. She exacerbated the problem in the Youtube Debate by saying she would refuse to negotiate with the Bush Administration's Official Enemies List™. That tied her too closely to a foreign policy regime that was utterly unacceptable to the vast majority of Democratic Primary and Caucus voters. This is a change election, and Democrats sense the opportunity to elect a reconstructive leader that redirects the debate away from the terms set by Reagan 25 years ago.

I empathize with people who have seen their favorite candidate lose, because obviously that's something I've lived through as well. But I try to be rational about it.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely (4.00 / 10)
Without her vote on the Iraq War and refusal to admit it was a mistake, there would have been no opening for Obama to run as the more anti-war candidate.  And then she compounded it by voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran resolution.  And then there were her campaign's miscalculations.

Personally, I think she was seared by the reaction she got when she was running for NY Senate to the picture of her kissing Suha Afafat, Yasser's wife.  It was her first taste of high-powered NY ethnic politics.  She probably never forgot it, and has voted wrong as a consequence.  Without that war vote she would probably be the nominee.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
Exactly right (4.00 / 7)
  It's amazing how Hillary supporters blame sexism for their candidate's failure to win a race in which she started with an immense cash and name-rec advantage. They blame everything and everybody except the candidate herself.

 Hillary's Iraq war vote was perhaps the most patronizing act committed by any politician this decade. She didn't bother to read the NIE. She basically told us Democrats: "Screw you. I'm voting for this thing. Deal with it. Who else are you going to vote for anyway?"

 And then she rubbed our noses in the dirt by voting for that ghastly Lieberman/Kyl resolution, well after the lack of credibility of the Bush administration's claims had been well established.

 Well, we found someone else to vote for. And crying sexism doesn't change those votes one whit.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Sexism? (4.00 / 1)
I completely agree.  I'd also like to understand how sexism (against HRC) can really be an argument when (a) over 55% of Democratic primary voters have been women and (b) the majority of voters who said that gender played a role voted for HRC.  Yes, I understand that people can lie to pollsters, but I doubt it was enough people to offset the advantage she received.  

BTW, how far did the male politicians who supported the Iraq War and served at least 8 years in the Senate get in the Democratic primary?  

John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  

[ Parent ]
No! You STILL Don't Get It! (4.00 / 4)
We understand why people have been angry with her over the Iraq War and we understand that her campaign has been terribly mismanaged. Most of us won't argue these points.

But YOU fail to get it...still! Calling women bitches, 'hos, whores, cunts, dykes, making up T-shirts that say "Bros before Hos" is misogynistic. We see and hear this shit every day online and elsewhere.

We aren't stupid. And, yes, we know that the media have contributed to this divide. But where the h*** were you and other "progressives" when MSNBC was busy engaging in sexist/misogynistic crap? You have been too busy being in awe of the network that promotes Barack Obama.

I empathize with people who have seen their favorite candidate lose, because obviously that's something I've lived through as well. But I try to be rational about it.

And good for you! But this isn't what this is about. It is about the wholesale mistreatment and hatred of women by name-calling, diminishing, denying, dismissing, marginalizing, and then acting like it's just a joke and why do we get so upset about it?

And YOU contribute to it by this attitude: "I try to be rational about it." You don't even get that piece of it. So why should I expect you would understand or empathize with women's mistreatment.

You obviously "get it" about Blacks? So what is the problem?

[ Parent ]
Just as qualified (4.00 / 2)
There isn't a 46 year old mother of pre-teens anywhere in the country, of any background whatever, that'd be considered 'qualified' to run for president.
[ Parent ]
If she'd been a Senator or Governor for a few years (4.00 / 3)
She would be (like JFK or Bill Clinton, both of whom were younger).  The problem is with women getting a later start in politics because of children, or getting whispered about for being single.  Yes, it is derivitavely because of sexism, but not directly.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
What's your point? (4.00 / 1)
I think Obama is the only 46 year old in the country that is considered qualified to be President, because the only way to test whether or not someone is "considered" qualified is for them to run a competitive campaign. He is a unique and extraordinary person.  It has nothing to do with gender or race.

BTW, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska (a Republican) just had her 4th child, and her name has been tossed-around as a potential VP for McCain.  She's only 44 years old.  So, I'm not sure the point you were trying to make is even factually accurate.



John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  

[ Parent ]
I think lots of us disagree with qualified (4.00 / 1)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
If we were going by "Qualified" (4.00 / 1)
You would be voting for Joe Biden.  So, please, cut the self-serving crap that the most qualified candidate was denied what they were entitled to.  

John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  
[ Parent ]
Sarah Palin (0.00 / 0)
in a few years?

[ Parent ]
Qualifications? .. (0.00 / 0)
There isn't a 46 year old mother of pre-teens anywhere in the country, of any background whatever, that'd be considered 'qualified' to run for president.

What exactly qualifies one to be President?  Was Lincoln qualified?  Was Eisenhower?  It is a unique position.  That being said, I want someone who represent the things I value(as much as possible).  Hell, it's too bad Elizabeth Edwards had never held elected office before.  She's one of the few people(Russ Feingold is another), where if either ran for president, I'd move to Iowa to volunteer on the campaign, or go where ever and max out contributing to.  Hell, I think Elizabeth Edwards would make a damn good president despite never having held elective office.  Alas, she isn't running.  

[ Parent ]
Does anybody care about issues? (4.00 / 6)
  Do these voters want to see a woman president so badly that they're willing to support a warmonger who has issues with the truth and who's immersed deep in the destructive lobbyist milieu that's a BIG factor in the sorry state our democracy is in?

I. Just. Don't. Get. Identity. Politics.

I mean, I'm Hispanic. I'm Puerto Rican. But I hold Alberto Gonzales in the deepest contempt, and would NEVER support him for ANY public office, anywhere. I would NEVER vote for the likes of Mel Martinez. I want officeholders who share my values -- whatever their gender and color. What these Hillary supporters are doing is casting their Democratic values (assuming they had them to begin with) to the wind in their irrational zeal to have a woman in the White House.

I would LOVE to see a woman president -- IF said woman upholds the progressive values that are VASTLY more important to me than any identity-politics codswallop. There are plenty of high-profile women who do, in fact, fill that bill. But Hillary Clinton is not one of them -- quite the contrary. I haven't heard one negative word about John McCain out of her in months.

I will say this: if Hillary somehow gets in and we get immersed in a war with Iran, I do not want to hear ONE WORD of complaint from ANYBODY who supported her.
 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
The Iraq war is not the most important issue (4.00 / 1)
just as with the vietnam war...you are misunderstanding how to build a progressive agenda and what to build it around.

you don't do it with a war or foreign policy...Domestic issues define a progressive agenda...and on domestic issues she is by far the more progresssive candidate...the mor progressive politician.  

He's about changing politics...not abut changing people's lives.  

After the Vietnam war was over, people stopped seeing the urgency of the progressive agenda....and Jimmy Carter instead of being a progressive was the beginning of Democratic compliance with the right wing zeitgeist in this country.

Don't build your choices solely around that....it will skew the decisions in the wrong direction.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
But she isn't progressive on domestic issues (4.00 / 1)
Sorry, but she is not by far the more progressive candidate. For every place where she has a slightly more progressive slant than Obama, Obama has a more progressive slant in another place.  Neither of them are very progressive when you look at the candidate pool we started with.  Edwards and Kucinich were the closest to the ideal and Obama and Clinton fall well short.  Clinton is closer to Obama and vice versa than either is to Edwards.  They don't even occupy the same political sphere as Kucinich in my book.  Now compared to McCain, they are more than worthy of my vote in November.
[ Parent ]
Very Condescending, this (0.00 / 0)
"Don't build your choices solely around that....it will skew the decisions in the wrong direction"

You are you to tell anyone that any issue they choose as promiment to them is skewing their decision in the wrong direction?  Different people prioritize the issues differently.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
"Hillary Hags" (4.00 / 2)
The use of the word "irrational" in this thread.  Or Contessa Brewer on MSNBC yesterday saying that Hillary "didn't look very ladylike" while drinking in Puerto Rico.

Words like that are so prevalent that most people don't even realize how offensive they are.  Though Obama isn't responsible for them, I think many women, me included, feel a kinship with Hillary because we can relate to her experiences.  

[ Parent ]
Contessa Brewer? .. (0.00 / 0)
The TradMed is worthless .. which illustrates the point .. a great deal of the sexism has come from the TradMed .. Tweety ... Tucker Carlson .. the NRO crowd
[ Parent ]
The point is... (4.00 / 4)
people like her can spout that crap and it barely gets noticed, while it strikes a nerve deep inside "women of a certain age."  When someone does point it out, they are accused of "playing the victim" or being "irrational."  

I think many of the women who are now supporting Hillary are doing so exactly because of the way their concerns about that kind of language have been so easily dismissed.  They won't be won over until there is widespread recognition and validation that it is no longer acceptable to disrespect women in that way.  

[ Parent ]
Were you here (4.00 / 5)
a few weeks ago when there was a picture posted of a young male Obama thug wearing a tee shirt that called Clinton a whore?

The worst part was, all these other Obama supporters on this blog, an allegedly progressive blog, were sticking up for him, saying it was funny, no big deal, "all the young kids are doing it nowadays!"

It was . . . discouraging.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Can you link to that post? .... (4.00 / 1)
Also .. I notice you engage in the name calling ... especially the particular name you used ... that's not right
[ Parent ]
Name calling! (4.00 / 2)
Heavens to Betsy, I hope you don't tell the teacher on me, I wouldn't want to get detention!

Here's the link: http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

And if you can't see why whore is worse than asshole, it's quite simple. "Asshole" is for something the young man DID. In this case, calling Clinton a whore. "Whore" on the other hand, is for something Clinton IS, i.e., a woman. "Whore" reduces a woman to a single, defining attribute, to a single body part actually, and if you need me to translate further I can, but I can't believe you are really that dense. Then again, you were one of the guys saying

I said it before, any men who calls women whores is an asshole, and I stand by that.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Oops (0.00 / 0)
hit post too soon. I went back and checked -- you did not defend the asshole in that thread, so I take that (partial thought) back. I thought I recognized your name but it wasn't from there.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Oops (0.00 / 0)
hit post too soon. I went back and checked -- you did not defend the asshole in that thread, so I take that (partial thought) back. I thought I recognized your name but it wasn't from there.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Maybe not all, eh? (0.00 / 0)
Please don't paint with too broad a brush.

You can see 10 comments "supporting" something you find offensive and decide that the whole blog is callous or whatever. What you don't see is a thousand or more people who chose not to comment but don't agree at all with those comments.

If you want 1000 comments decrying the horror of a picture, head over to DKos.

Here, the focus is more on policy and process. It's not perfect here, but painting with a broad brush can be, um, inaccurate.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
Did I say all? (0.00 / 0)
As far as I'm concerned, ONE so-called progressive who thinks it's okay to call women whores is one too many. What part of "respect for women is a progressive value" is so hard to understand?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Democrat, and it will take more than a couple of piss-ant misogynists on a comment thread to change that.

But seriously, aren't you the least bit embarrassed to be associated with these guys? Doesn't it give you even a little bit of insight into why women might not be so gung-ho for Obama?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Got it - go for perfect (4.00 / 1)
As far as I'm concerned, ONE so-called progressive who thinks it's okay to call women whores is one too many. What part of "respect for women is a progressive value" is so hard to understand?

Uh, like many many progressive men, I have no problem with this. Other than the fact that there's no way for me to stop others from being morons.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Democrat, and it will take more than a couple of piss-ant misogynists on a comment thread to change that.

But seriously, aren't you the least bit embarrassed to be associated with these guys?

Sure. But so what? Idiots are everywhere. I've been on the internet since before it was the internet. This is SOP for any collection of humanity and especially the electronic version of same. I'm usually too slow in replying to be the first to say "Don't be a moron."

Doesn't it give you even a little bit of insight into why women might not be so gung-ho for Obama?

I must be dense. No. Honest. I just don't see how some random bozo saying something stupid translates into "not gung-ho for Obama". Random bozos are everywhere and are to be ignored. At least in my politics.

In the meantime, continue to blow off the (love the phrase) pissant misogynists. Awesome term.  

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
I think we basically agree. (0.00 / 0)
And idiots ARE everywhere.

In the meantime, check out how many people have created the "John McCain" links in their sig lines. Every time we comment, we are creating links to optimize the "Searching for John McCain" algorithm!

Talk about having your cake and eating it too.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
So call NBC .... (0.00 / 0)
and it should piss you off even more .. that a women(Brewer) is spouting this nonsense ... doesn't it say something when a woman(Brewer) seemingly sells her soul to get on TV?
[ Parent ]
here's the thing (4.00 / 3)
I'm a female in my 40s and support Obama and frankly, I'm insulted when others imply Clinton should have my vote because of her gender.

I think she'll drop out next week, but it's awfully hard to be gracious when she or her surrogates hint she'll go all the way to the convention, thereby guaranteeing we'll lose in November. And I don't need to "try to" argue that Obama is more qualified. He's more qualified to be the candidate because he earned more delegates.  I could go into the reasons I support him, but I see Hillary supporters as being graceless and angry, why even try?  Hell, Jeralyn at Talk Left (and Armando, for that matter) are reprinting Malkin attacks on the front page.

I just don't get the big deal here or why I should get upset about a woman being president in 2009.  It will happen. It may be a woman's time now, it just wasn't Hillary Clinton's time. She more than just a woman and she didn't make it on the metric used for primaries.  

[ Parent ]
No it won't happen (4.00 / 1)
 It will happen. It may be a woman's time now, it just wasn't Hillary Clinton's time.

It will always be "not be this particular woman"...it was 53 years from the 15th amendment giving black MEN the right to vote and the 19th giving women...white and black...the right to vote.

2 history lessons

The history of the women's movement is 1 step forward, long periods of blowback and regression and then some forward movement.  It will be a long time again before it happens...maybe you'll still be alive....but those boomer women won't.

2nd History lesson...Peace and how it's conducted is always up to the winners...not the losers.  Reconciliation is not dependent mostly on Hillary or her supporters....but on Barack Obama and his supporters.

And you are perfect example of both my history lessons...why women don't keep advancing is women like you who stop thinking it's urgent or important and second lesson ....graceless WINNERS..

PEACE IS UP TO THE WINNERS...like the US in Germany and Japan after WWII.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
This argument is ridiculous (4.00 / 2)
"It will always be "not be this particular woman"..."

There are plenty of female politicians i like and would vote for.  Nancy Pelosi for one is brilliant, and I would support her in a heartbeat for the Presidency.

Here are the reasons I don't support Hillary:

1) She voted for AUMF.
2) She has no qualms with lobbyists.
3) She seems to be poll-driven like her husband and willing to take sides on issues that value political expediency over good policy, as the gas tax holiday revealed.
4) She has run a dirty campaign.
5)  She surrounds herself with hucksters like Mark Penn, James Carville, Terry McAuliffe, Howard Wolfson, and Lanny F(*%kin' Davis.
6) She has run a terrible strategic campaign, which doesn't bolster my confidence for a general election.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
You know what? (4.00 / 2)
I won't be upset if a woman president doesn't happen in my lifetime, although I think it will.  

The very idea that I have to have a woman, any woman, in the position of the presidency to feel like we're treated equally is odd to me.  What about getting the same wage? What about health insurance companies that don't discriminate against women of childbearing age? What about a career path that recognizes we reproduce?  What about affordable child care for single working mothers? If I get those things without a woman president before I die, I'll be happy. Whether there's a man or a woman in the oval office at the time is sort of immaterial. Being tied to the symbolism of a woman president when all these other matters are unsettled seems shallow to me. I have a doctorate I've paid for myself and have worked since the 1970s and I've been a feminist since I could spell the word.

And I think you've nailed the problem of which I spoke. Why should I even attempt to make peace with someone who lectures me on women's rights and then tops it with:

And you are perfect example of both my history lessons...why women don't keep advancing is women like you who stop thinking it's urgent or important and second lesson ....graceless WINNERS..

Sounds like a bitter ad hominem attack to me.  A little history lesson for you: the Allies didn't win WWII until the Axis powers surrendered. Then came peace.

[ Parent ]
Jeesh. (2.00 / 2)
So you want to firebomb your fellow Democrats. You want to see them thoroughly humbled and only then you'll be nice. That's going to be really helpful.

Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
Nice straw woman (4.00 / 1)
So that's the choice? "Firebomb" and thoroughly humble them?

I think the point is, that if Hillary isn't ready to surrender (and she says she isn't) then she is to be treated as though she is still fighting (which she is).

So acting as though Hillary is still fighting means Obama supporters are firebombing her? Hearing her say "I can't win" means she's thoroughly humbled?

Welcome to politics. Call Chris Dodd and Joe Biden. Or John Edwards. They were "humbled" no more or less.

Some of us are just waiting for Hillary to say she's done. Like those other politicians did. It's not personal. It's not gender-based. It's politics.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
KB compared Clinton supporters (4.00 / 1)
to the Axis powers, who had to be totally defeated, firebombed, and yes even literally hit with a nuclear bomb before they could be rehabilitated and welcomed back into the society of civilized nations. They had to be thoroughly humbled and beaten down, so that they would never dare to resist again.

If this is honestly how Obama supporter feel, then our Party is in deep trouble.

Maybe you are new to politics, but there's a basic idea that you don't burn bridges because you never know when you'll need them yourself.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
you need to read the entire exchange (0.00 / 0)
PEACE IS UP TO THE WINNERS...like the US in Germany and Japan after WWII.

Is debcoop's metaphor, not mine. Talk to her about it.

If you can't understand that Obama supporters can't welcome you aboard until you end the struggle and say you're ready, then there is no helping you.

And if Clinton supporters (or a segment of them) run around with their fingers in their ears yelling "nyah, nyah, I can't hear you!" Obama supporters will just have to wait.

[ Parent ]
You try reading the whole thing: (4.00 / 1)
A little history lesson for you: the Allies didn't win WWII until the Axis powers surrendered. Then came peace.

In other words, when Clinton supporters are groveling at our feet, begging for mercy, then we will relent.

Fuck that, we are supposed to be on the same team.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Interesting (4.00 / 1)
I will repeat:

when you say it's done and you're ready to be on the same team, we'll be gracious. "It's done" doesn't take groveling, it just takes a tongue and vocal chords. One of the candidates needs to be the nominee, it appears that will be Obama. "We're ready" is a signal to Obama supporters that you want to work together.

No sado-masochistic fantasies there, just a simple recognition that we're not "winners" until a. you guys say we've wrapped it up or b. we take it at the convention (a scenario in which I think everyone loses).  And slamming us with insults and dramatics just makes it harder on everyone, including yourselves.

The problem here seems to be personalizing and internalizing the whole thing on the part of some Clinton supporters.  Frankly, Clinton or her supporters groveling at our feet is a pretty distasteful image, but whatever works for you, I guess.

I'm done.

[ Parent ]
Not groveling. (4.00 / 1)
I've said it before but I'll say it again. If Obama wins the nomination, I will vote for him, but I am not groveling at the feet of his self-appointed representatives here on the internet. And you are not doing your candidate any favor with your demands for total surrender.

Politics is a long game. You are up now but you will be down sometime. Remember this when that happens.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
LOL! ;-) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Wrong attribution (0.00 / 0)
Oops, Sadie. Looks like an incorrect attribution there. I compared no one to Axis powers. Fwiw, I don't argue by analogy or metaphor.

And as an Edwards supporter, how I feel doesn't qualify me to be lumped in with Obama supporters.

Be sure to tell Hillary that part about not burning bridges. It's good advice.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
Sorry. (0.00 / 0)
ksh01, not you.

And I would be glad to tell Hillary that, if she would only return my phone calls . . .

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
I want them to stop being so upset they lose (0.00 / 0)
their reading skills, stop attacking people as standing in the way of the advancement of women because they support Obama, recognize it's over, and say "we're ready."

As long as you personally attack people (other women, I might add, who are exercising their choice) AND refusing to acknowledge the race is over, we have no room to be graceful about winning.

PEACE IS UP TO THE WINNERS...like the US in Germany and Japan after WWII.

was her metaphor, not mine.

[ Parent ]
It is completely material (0.00 / 0)
Whether there's a man or a woman in the oval office at the time is sort of immaterial

To do these things women need to have power...and the presidiency is power...and frankly your attitude is far too tyoical of the deference that women give to others...men...to accomplish for them what they should do themselves.....

And yes how individual women respond as to whether they consider themselves part of that group does advance or retard women's power.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
What do these women say about Biden and Dodd (0.00 / 0)
and Richardson, who actually have experience?
[ Parent ]
How do you communicate with these people? (0.00 / 0)
I don't see how it's the fault of Obama supporters. Whenever I encounter ANY voter who has those opinions I usually just move on to someone less filled with blinding hostility.

It's not dismissing their concerns about women and especially older women to say that Hillary has lost, Obama has won, and if we are to salvage ANYTHING of women's rights, we need to focus on beating McCain.

All this suggests to me is how this country will never solve its problems until the boomers are off the stage. God knows how long that'll take.

[ Parent ]
Yet Another Problem (4.00 / 1)
All this suggests to me is how this country will never solve its problems until the boomers are off the stage. God knows how long that'll take.  

We have with a lot of Obama's supporters. The world started when you were born...

This is insulting, just insulting. You want "boomer" women to support an unqualified candidate for POTUS but you don't give a shit about how your attitude affects "boomers" or (no doubt) women.

Why should I care about supporting YOUR candidate? Especially when all I get is criticism for my age, my gender, my political "baggage", my candidate of choice, my "victim" mentality (as it's referred to by so many other enlightened Obama supporters), my generation?

History didn't start the day you were born. And guess what? It won't end when you retire and die. Now, if YOU want to have a real conversation/dialogue, make an attitude adjustment; then maybe we'll talk.

[ Parent ]
He's not "my candidate" (4.00 / 1)
I back Obama with reservations, but it's time for all Democrats to unite around him in order to defeat the wackjob Republicans that have done so much to destroy our country and our future.

What your comment suggests to me is that much of this is about the boomers watching their world and their influence over it slipping away, and instead of walking off the stage gracefully, or helping us enter a new era, they are petulantly demanding that we still do things their way.

As far as I'm concerned you've merely validated all of my points.

[ Parent ]
I will tell you why (4.00 / 1)
It's because boomers can't get past the question of identity. For people of that generation, your identity is the most important thing in the universe. Your age, your race, your gender, your location, your political bent, these things are YOU.

Folks of the 13th and later generations just don't see the world that way. But because there are just so damn many boomers and they've held so much power over our discourse for so long, we're stuck with the boomer ideas of identity politics.  

[ Parent ]
Ain't this the truth... (0.00 / 0)
Identity is king for boomers.  It's the same reason you can't offer even the most couched and polite criticism of The Beatles when a boomer is around.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
I'm a boomer (0.00 / 0)
(at least that's what the demographers tell me I am)

and I can't understand why the Beatles were such a big deal.  Ditto Elvis Presley.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
From what I've seen you're probably an exception (0.00 / 0)

I undertsand why both the Beatles and Elvis are rightly big deals, they were both incredibly influential in their respective ways in shaping modern music and pop culture, but I don't think either is beyond criticism.  Elvis fans will at least admit some of his movie songs are bad, but when it comes to Beatles fans...look out.  I once mentioned that I thought the Beatles version of "You've Really Got A Hold On Me" was lame compared to Smokey Robinson's...boy, did I get an earful.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
Believe me, (0.00 / 0)
I KNOW I'm an exception.  I have been told so many times and often loudly.  I gained some respect for the Elvis Phenomenon when I read/heard John Trudell's poem, "Baby Boom Che'".

"Hell, we danced, even if we DIDN'T know how.  I mean: Elvis made us move!"



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Hmmm (0.00 / 0)

I'm about as big of a Beatles fan as you're likely to run into, and while I disagree with you on "You Really Got a Hold On Me" (I think it's one of, if not their best cover), I'm happy to admit there are some reals dregs in the catalog.

Don't even think about messing with Abbey Road or Revolver though. 


[ Parent ]
Elvis is too early to be a truly boomer phenomena (0.00 / 0)


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
same old, (4.00 / 1)
of course, ol mattie doesn't post obama's response...the apology he left on her voicemail.

I'm seeing women attacked for sexism all over the country, and it is making white boomer women extremely angry.

i'm not. who is attacking women for sexism?

great post at Bitch Phd (4.00 / 3)
which Natasha Chart linked to not long ago:

http://bitchphd.blogspot.com/2...

Orenstein pins down the thing that's been frustrating me so much about the Clinton/misogyny stuff: it's very simple, and yet it seems so difficult to say or see it clearly. It isn't that the misogyny is the only reason people oppose Clinton, or that it's inherently misogynist to oppose her, or that people pointing out the misogyny of most opposition to her are saying that opposing her is inevitably misogynist--nor is it that that misogyny is a good reason to vote for her (it's not, although it's very understandable why people would have that reaction).

It's that people seem by and large unable to express opposition to her without resorting to misogyny. And that this is terribly, terribly depressing--and offensive, if you happen to be a woman.



Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
but (4.00 / 3)
It's that people seem by and large unable to express opposition to her without resorting to misogyny. And that this is terribly, terribly depressing--and offensive, if you happen to be a woman.

from what i've seen, people seem by and large unable to express oppostition to her by resorting to misogyny.

when is the last time you've heard a talking head say "i'm not voting for hillary because she is a woman". of course, you might hear some dumbass in the street saying this crap, but that definitely goes both ways. it is not accepted by mainstream commentators.

they (hillary & co) are never specific. that's my problem. they certainly cannot point to the obama campaign and try to put this crap on them.

[ Parent ]
Talking heads? (4.00 / 4)
Matthews pinched her fucking cheek live on national television.

I'll grant you, things are getting better.  She hasn't had her ass pinched yet.

I'll grant the lack of imagination of her campaign, the hopeless organization, relying on idiots like Penn.....but in the end, Obama will not win the general without the Clinton supporters.  He has to take this stuff seriously.

That "sweetie" moment is devastating for any woman voter.

[ Parent ]
Did you not see how Hillary herself (0.00 / 0)
flirted with him right before his pinching?  Even before the pinching came on, I and my husband looked at each other in utter disbelief -- here was this woman running for President and she was all coy, flirty and said something to the effect of "ooh, you poor baby", approaching him with wide open arms and touching his cheeks herself. Watch that tape again, it is a disgusting display of unprofessional behavior all around...
[ Parent ]
Who said the following: (0.00 / 0)
"At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt."

A. someone other than Barack Obama
B. John McCain
C. all of the above

answer

[ Parent ]
edit... (0.00 / 0)
I mean John McCain
[ Parent ]
So Without A Clue (0.00 / 0)
You just don't get it. Is it your dicks that keep you from understanding SEXISM/MISOGYNY? Is this it? Or is it just plain fear of having to admit that women in power scare the living hell out of you? Something isn't right when women explain and offer examples over and over again about what constitutes sexism/misogyny and you still don't get it (or just won't get it).

Hopefully in your next life - whenever that is - you'll come back as a female (in the pre "post [fill in the blank] world you seem to be enamored of); then maybe you'll understand.

Better yet: why don't you ask your mother; your grandmother; your aunts; your female cousins; your older sisters; your girlfriend/spouse/SO - if they have a clue, perhaps they can explain it to you.

You understand what racism is; you understand (or seem to) the "coded" words/messages/language/body language. Why can't or don't you understand sexism/misogyny?  

[ Parent ]
We do understand (4.00 / 2)
at least, we think we do. But you're convinced that we can't possibly understand, because we have a Y chromosome and that affects our essence. How can anyone convince you otherwise? Folks all over this thread have been evincing their understanding of the fact that misogyny played a role in this race and Hillary was a victim of it. And yet you have refused to accept anyone else's understanding as valid simply because they might not be women and they might not agree with you. How can anyone not be put off by your attitude?
[ Parent ]
You know there are a great many women supporting Obama (0.00 / 0)
Many of them here.  I do believe we can oppose Hillary on grounds other than misogyny.  And I do believe that most of us understand sexism and misogyny pretty well, particularly us oler ones.

A person can support Obama and even dislike Hillary without it being sexism.

Granted, the sexism on TV is at times disgusting.  I solve that by not watching much TV talking heads.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
the conventional wisdom which the obama campaign relied on repeatedly (0.00 / 0)
are right wing stereotypes based on the inherent sexism of their attitude to strong women.  They created the conventionasl wisdom that she is dishonset, dishonorable and lacks ethics....so yes I thnk many of those who dislike her are unknowly responding to the seixsm that these character assaults are based on.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
I really have not been seeing misogyny (4.00 / 5)
From people involved in the Obama campaign or from people in the media that aren't crazy right-wing wackos.

But that's the argument I've been hearing. The examples I hear are pretty ridiculous. Desmoinesdem, do you honestly think John Edwards was being a misogynist when he made that comment about Hillary's coat in the debate? I don't. I think he was making fun of the triviality of the media in focusing on things like haircuts. Yet that's been cited as one example.

Do you honestly think she was being "ganged up on" in that debate last summer because she's a woman and all the rest of the candidates were men? Or was it because she was the front-runner? But that's been used as another example.

Do you honestly think John Edwards was being misogynist when his comments were taken out of context during the NH primary when Hillary cried? Because that's also been used as an example.

The Clintons are very smart people. They know how to use things to their advantage (including sending out an email fundraiser after that "ganging up" moment in the debate). Including ginning up support in their key demographic. So, yes I understand that people can use things like the above-mentioned examples to claim there was overt or covert sexism directed towards her in this campaign. And I understand that some people believe that and see it as a pattern and see it as the reason why the election was "stolen" from Hillary. But that doesn't mean it's true. And it doesn't mean we need to perpetuate it.

Because as that great Iowan senator Tom Harkin said as he was quoting Roy Rogers,
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so."

[ Parent ]
Neither have I (4.00 / 3)
The most misogynistic thing I've run into in this primary has been when some online Obama supporters, literally infuriated by something Clinton did, resorted to sexist names such as "bitch".

And for the record, for the vast majority of the primary people who have made such comments, at least on dKos where I hang out, have been chastised for it.

It has been tremendously frustrating, and becoming increasingly so, to see what appears to be cries of sexism motivated not by actual sexism but rather by anger over losing.  How else to explain claims of sexism over incidents that simply didn't meet any reasonable definition of such?

I'm sure this will come off as anger-inducing to some, and perhaps as an indicator of a man who "just doesn't get it" to others.  I can accept that, though I was brought up to be sensitive to and oppose sexism and have counted myself as fairly aware of it when it happens.

I don't know how to solve this situation.  It seems that, more and more, hate speech is becoming the norm.

[ Parent ]
what dkos do you hang out with (0.00 / 0)
the blog is and was a minefield for clinton supporters as you would get troll rated for saying anything critical of obama....and equallu outrageous things were said by obama supporters and not only were they not trolled they were rewarded.

My UID is 4025 and the Kerry Dean flame wars were civil compared to what it's like now at Dkos.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Typo (0.00 / 0)
Sorry, Will Rogers. Not Roy Rogers.

Oh, and John McCain is John McCain.  

[ Parent ]
This Is Classic Abuser Dynamic Stuff (2.67 / 3)
First, deny it's a problem.

Second, minimize the problem if it gets out-of-hand.\

Third, make fun of it and create "crazy-making".

Fourth, blame HER for it.

What comes next? Smackin' 'em around?

[ Parent ]
Honestly?!? (4.00 / 1)
"I really have not been seeing misogyny...
from people in the media that aren't crazy right-wing wackos."

 I guess it depends on what your definition of "right-wing wackos" is, but the media blow-up over the smallest creak in her voice before NH was outrageous.

And I'm not an HRC supporter. But I am a woman, and I found that to be absolutely disgusting. I suppose I'd call it more sexism than misogyny, but it was certainly extreme.

  And Chris Matthews? Don't get me started on Chris Matthews and his nutjob misogyny.

[ Parent ]
Let's not vote for Obama because the media is sexist... (0.00 / 0)
I just don't understand this.  The media has been horribly sexist.  So let's blame Obama and not vote for him. Huh?!?  When this thing was still a race all the blogs I read had front page diaries decrying the horrid sexism of the media towards Clinton.  Once it got down to a two person race and the Clintons started in with the racial dog whistling, I noticed that the defense of Hillary turned into piling on.  It has intensified in my eyes in direct proportion to the amount of vitriol that Clinton and her surrogates have unleashed against Obama.

Is it fair no.  But the amount of sexism coming out the Obama camp is much less than the amount of racism coming out of the Clinton camp.  When you add in the media and the unaffiliated, unwashed masses then sure Clinton may be getting the worst of it. I still don't understand how that third-party stink is supposed to stick to Obama worse than the stench that the Clintons have let off from their very own mouths.

[ Parent ]
Obama kept quiet while this assault went on (0.00 / 0)
she said nothing and he let the media and his supporters go ahead and engage in without reprimand from him.

He benefitted and then his campaign continally used the right wing genrated talking points about her character...dishonest, dishonarable, unscrupous, no moral cente...to attack her with.

he bears a responsibilty for silence, for benefitting and for using it obliquely himself.

He's got a lot of making up to do...

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
this, in a nutshell, illustrates the problem (0.00 / 0)
1. I think it's clear that the sexism/misogyny of American society is making itself felt in this campaign, in myriad ways.  Which isn't that surprising, given how sexist/misogynistc American society is.

2. "woman" and "Anti-sexist" are not equivalent terms.  The problem with American society is patriarchy, and it's a social system that affects EVERYONE - male, female, transgender, genderqueer, and others-- though not the same way.  It benefits people in various ways, harms them in various ways, etc, and of course there's a different level of benefits and harms that fall on you depending on who you are.  That people who feel and are conscious of gender violence directed their way are disproportionately more likely to be women is hardly a coincidence, but it also falls on LGBT people, in certain ways even on men, can pit woman against woman, and it intersects with class issues, race issues, etc. in convoluted ways.

3. There is some confusion between supporting/opposing women's rights and supporting/opposing Hillary Clinton, which really aren't the same thing.  In fact, at points, even the Clinton campaign has USED this blurring (e.g. Carville has attacked Obama for not being masculine enough, which i find grotesque, and at times both Clinton has attempted to win support by appealing to traditional gender roles (e.g. just before New Hampshire)).  To be fair, they may have done so to make up for the sexism that they felt was damaging her electoral prospects, but I think it's a matter of personal judgement whether some of the responses were appropriate (on mulitple grounds, including anti-sexist).  

Until these distinctions are clear, this conversation will continue without end, and those that are interested in creating fights for whatever reason will be able to do so.  

Personally, I think the best way for it to end is for supporters of Obama who identify as progressives to acknowledge sexism/misogyny in this campaign and in particular and in society more broadly, and start engaging more on women's rights as issues.   Simultaneously, those supporters of Clinton who believe that opposing her is always motivated by anti-woman sentiments would ideally start paying more attention to the distinctions between patriarchy as a social system, the role/idea of a woman President, and the specific manifestations of sexism in this campaign.

[ Parent ]
Maybe we should start taking this seriously (3.00 / 4)
After, the feminist movement has a history of unfortunate and self-defeating steps going back to the time Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others started openly race baiting to whip up support for their cause after they felt "betrayed" by Frederick Douglass.

I need to pull out some history books to learn how and if the wounds were healed back then, and if there is anything that can be learned from that that we can apply to today.

I do agree that some Obama supporters haven't been as understanding as they should of these boomer-women voters, but party unity is a two way street, and Hillary doesn't seem all that concerned with it right now either.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

They felt betrayed (4.00 / 3)
because suffragette women were some of the strongest voices in the abolitionist movement, but when it came time to judge who should be considered full citizens in this country and be allowed to vote, Douglass was among those who thought women should step aside and wait their turn for suffrage.  African American men got the vote and women had to wait another 60 years and found themselves on their own in fighting for the right to be complete citizens.  Douglass's position was understandable in the charged atmosphere of post-Civil War America, but the anger of the women who had worked so hard for African Americans to be free was also understandable.  They thought they were fighting together for human rights, but in the end were left to battle on their own to win those rights for themselves.  

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance


[ Parent ]
I understand this... (4.00 / 1)
but the way some of the suffragettes then USED racism is completely sad.  There seemed to be an attitude of "If I'm not getting mine, screw you".  It's a sentiment that to me mirrors what we are seeing with some Hillary supporters who are threatening to vote for McCain.  They are letting fear (that they won't see a female President) and frustration get in the way of rational judgement.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
And we still have this (4.00 / 1)
the GL vs. the BT, against the anti-racism movement against the feminists.  This oppression olympics stupidity doesn't help anyone, and keeps us nice and divided and easy to defeat.
[ Parent ]
Respect would help (4.00 / 4)
I think Obama is handling it well now.  Now if his supporters can just follow his example, despite their growing (and understandable) exasperation with Clinton's refusal to drop out. Instead of just dismissing women who identify with Clinton and are frustrated at her defeat, keep the focus on policies and defeating McCain and allow women whose dreams have been smashed have a decent interval to grieve, recoup, reconcile and go forward on a different team.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance


[ Parent ]
Very well put (0.00 / 0)
and very diplomatically worded.  We can all learn from following your lead.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
Thank you (0.00 / 0)


John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance


[ Parent ]
There you go again (4.00 / 1)

They are letting fear (that they won't see a female President) and frustration get in the way of rational judgement.

[ Parent ]
Oh, come on. (4.00 / 2)
Gender in no way relates to whether or not someone is rational, and I have never implied that it does.  For you to be overly-sensitive to this word doesn't make your point any stronger.

I know plenty of White Redneck men who irrationally fear that Obama is a secret muslim.

Do YOU think voting for McCain out of frustration is rational?

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Wake up (0.00 / 0)
Women have been hearing for a long time that they are too "irrational" to hold management and leadership positions.  It was seriously suggested during the cold war that a female president might start WWIII because of PMS.

Now you have Obama followers claiming that Clinton supporters are being "irrational" if they don't vote, or vote for McCain.

If I were a woman, I'm pretty sure I'd react to that by saying: Fuck you, you smug prick, just watch me.

[ Parent ]
You're right (0.00 / 0)
that wouldn't be irrational. It would be down right stupid.
[ Parent ]
I see your point (0.00 / 0)
but that certainly wasn't what I was trying to imply.

Perhaps "unreasonable" is a better term?

John McCain.  Wrong for America.

[ Parent ]
Oh Baloney! (4.00 / 2)
I worked in all kinds of jobs and was never told or treated as if I was too irrational to have any kind of job or promotion. And if a woman does run into this until recently we had options. Any woman that lives her life worrying about this kind of crap IS irrational.

You can't compare what happened after WWII to what is happening today. IMO it's not going to be years and years before another woman works her way towards the presidency. I probably won't live to see it, but seeing Hillary make it this far lets me know that it won't be long and that the country is ready when the right woman comes along. Sadly, Hillary is not that woman.

We women are not victims and it's condescending to be treated as if we are.

[ Parent ]
You're going to see it sooner than you think... (0.00 / 0)
...probably next election cycle for a new president.  It may even be a Republican!

Anyways, the fundamental error that old guard feminists make is the assumption that nothing whatsoever has changed int he past 40 years.  A lot has changed... quite significantly!  Really, women's rights have made HUGE strides in my adult lifetime.  

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Count yourself lucky (4.00 / 2)
My perspective comes from my spouse who (a) is the only female in the room at the top management meetings she attends and (b) regularly has amazing experiences to relate.  Ex: Her employer's lawyer says, I could go talk business with the boys over there, or hang out with you pretty girls instead.  I hear stories like this all the time.  Tough go-getting male administrators are respected; tough go-getting female administrators are routinely dismissed as "bitches" in private conversations.  Women that get ahead have to foster an outward persona of "Little Miss Sunshine" (as I heard a woman being called to her face during a business meeting).

As for legal recourse, kiss your career goodbye if you take that route.

What's really killing though, is the "sweetie" remark from someone purported to be the new great hope for American democracy.

As Matt would say, Wow, just wow.

[ Parent ]
blame the victim (4.00 / 1)
After, the feminist movement has a history of unfortunate and self-defeating steps going

you wanna win the general election? Or do you just want to blame women for the fact that we still face discrimination. Just asking sweetie

[ Parent ]
I am not blaming women for discrimination... (4.00 / 2)
simply pointing out that good people who can be extremely devoted to a cause can sometimes lose perspective and do things that aren't helpful in the long-run, ma'am.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
A lot of feminists are very skeptical (4.00 / 1)
when people talk about the 'self defeating feminist movement' meme.   That criticism is often associated with a statement saying that they added support for lesbians and a critique of cultural sexism/sexual harrassment to their equal work for equal pay advocacy.  

and dammit, they were right to do so.

[ Parent ]
It wasn't self-defeating acts (4.00 / 1)
that caused women to wait an additional 60 years after the Fourteenth Amendment for suffrage. Men just didn't consider us fully competent human beings.  The fact that we are another 88 years out from the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment and for the first time a woman had a real shot at being elected president tells you something.  Women who despair over seeing a woman president in their lifetimes have reason for their skepticism.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance


[ Parent ]
Remember married women couldn't sign contracts (4.00 / 6)
In their own name in most states until what was it--the '70s at least.  Women couldn't get their own charge accounts, for example.  In fact, most advances in womens' rights came as a consequence of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex, that was inserted as a joke by Southern congresscritters in the CR bill and as a way to defeat it.  I wasn't enforced until the late '70s.  That's the kind of sh*t we remember.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
Perhaps off-topic, (4.00 / 3)
but these conversations so often seem predicated on the notion that there's no overlap between 'black' and 'female,' rendering black women completely invisible. Obviously that's not what anyone intends, but I keep catching myself thinking this, so I hope you'll forgive me writing a comment about it, mostly to drive home the concept in my own head.
[ Parent ]
I don't know about you (0.00 / 0)
but I'm pretty clear on this.

Black women were not allowed to vote when black men were, for example, they had to wait until all women could vote.  

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Half-right (0.00 / 0)
Except, that neither black men nor black women were really allowed to vote until 1965 and the passage of the Voting Rights Act.  

John McCain hates children. Expose McCain!  
[ Parent ]
Not true in most of the North and West. (0.00 / 0)


John McCain--He's not who you think he is.
[ Parent ]
It's extremely serious (0.00 / 0)
We have a large, bona fide disconnect between what the supporters of one candidate see and supporters of the other candidate see.  It's gone beyond typical confirmation bias that goes along with supporting one candidate over another -- this is well into demonization of both the other candidate and his or her supporters.

Perhaps only time and potential consequences can heal these wounds.  But I'm not sure that will happen in time -- I routinely see comments from progressives who support Clinton who literally despise Obama, placing him on a level with Bush himself.  And for the life of me, I can't understand it.

[ Parent ]
Right, When All Else Fails... (0.00 / 0)
get a book to try and solve it.

ANYTHING other than actually deal with the problem as it exists.  

[ Parent ]
historiically untrue and it's disgusting of you to characterize it that way (0.00 / 0)
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others started openly race baiting to whip up support for their cause after they felt "betrayed" by Frederick Douglass.

He did betray them.  Oh and by the way he betrayed black women as well

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Not sure what we can give them. (4.00 / 1)
   We're not going to deliver the nomination to Hillary, and there seems to be no available compromise on that.  I'm not sure what we can really do about this.  The only who can heal these wounds is Hillary Clinton.  We are in big trouble.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
What we can certainly give them is... (4.00 / 4)
...someone other than John McCain.

There, Chris, I did my homework for the day.

Yeah I blog.

[ Parent ]
+ (0.00 / 0)
one of the best things about this contentious race is that when hillary does campaign for obama it will be much more effective. same with bill.
[ Parent ]
Hillary is not campaigning for Obama.... (0.00 / 0)
....she is not conceding... if she can't get the presidency, no one will...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
You don't know that (4.00 / 2)
unless you're a mind reader.  
[ Parent ]
Obama supporters are the ones (4.00 / 4)
who need to be more gracious, who need to end the overheated Hillary-bashing.

I'm not just talking about blogs, though it is very bad at places like Daily Kos.

A friend of mine (fellow Edwards precinct captain) was an Edwards delegate at the recent district-level convention in Iowa. His plan was to stick with Edwards as long as there was a viable group, and to switch to Clinton if Edwards was no longer viable.

Waiting in line to sign in as a delegate for the convention, he had to listen to all this Hillary-bashing crap from the Obama delegates standing in the same line. It repelled him, even though he was spent a lot of time last year arguing with the Clinton supporters he knew.

He's a classic case of someone who is not going to volunteer for Obama this fall, mainly because he is turned off by the behavior of some Obama fans. He's probably told 20 people about what assholes the Obama delegates were at the convention.

He will vote for Obama in the general, but you want people who favored other candidates to feel that they can be engaged in the campaign.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but no... (4.00 / 1)
...the nicer we are to Hillary and her supporters, the more they step on us...

It's time for her to concede, and when she doesn't, drive her out.  

It's time for some toughlove... coddling her supporters has failed miserably...  it's time for a new strategy.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Whoa (4.00 / 6)
We're starting to blame each other here.

Both sides HAVE to move past this.

The primary is over. We must unify and destroy McCain.

We gain nothing by arguing about whose side 'really' took the high road, or whose side really did this or that.

There will be books written for years about who did what to who.

Lets just unite and remind people McCain wants us in Iraq for 100 years, and is anti-choice, and his campaign chair is responsible for the mortgage crisis and he is a poo-poo head.

MmmKay?  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

[ Parent ]
Sorry, but no (4.00 / 1)
there are agitators on both sides constantly stirring shit up.  It's not reflective of most people, on either side, but it does serve to polarize things between the Clinton supporters and the Obama supporters.
[ Parent ]
I'll stop (4.00 / 2)
When I can feel assured that Hillary Clinton won't be the nominee for vice-president.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
And if she is the vp you'll vote for McCain too? (4.00 / 4)
I'm just saying we need to move forward. We might not have a VP until AUGUST. In the mean time, we need to turn that rancor on the Republicans. Not each other.

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
I'll one up you on that (4.00 / 1)
We needed to be turning this rancor on John McCain sometime around early May
[ Parent ]
I wouldn't go that far (0.00 / 0)
But I feel that Hillary Clinton as second on the ticket is some sort of betrayal, since I see Obama as a potential break from the destructive politics as usual of Clinton-Bush-Carville-Rove.  Obama needs a vice-president who reinforces the message that good judgment is more important than experience.  Hillary Clinton fails that threshold.

Of course, I am happy to turn my rancor on John McCain, a man who is dumber, crazier, and more stubborn than George W. Bush.  I am happy to attack him for not being a man as he hides his financial records behind his wife's skirt.  I am happy to attack John McCain's military record and his Launchpad McQuack-esque ability to crash planes as surely as he will crash the U.S. economy if he is handed the keys to the White House.  I am happy to attack John McCain by casting doubt on the possibility that he will survive to see Election Day, not to mention a potential full four-year term (due to his medical history, not to anyone RFK-ing him, I suppose I should mention).

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
I've been enjoying your comments, (4.00 / 1)
because they're thoughtful and thought-provoking even when I disagree. But I'm always baffled by the fairly common, 'I'm not going to fully support X due to things over which X has no control.' If I meet some raging asshole Russ Feingold supporters, and I'm sure there are many, I'm not gonna suddenly stop thinking Feingold deserves my support.

Hell, if I meet some raging asshole Van Morrison fans, I'm not gonna stop thinking that Summertime in England is the best song in the history of ever. I honestly don't understand this.

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately, We've Seen This On BOTH Sides (0.00 / 0)
There's a lot of reasons I am an issue activist, not a candidate activist.  But this is one of the most obvious ones.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3
[ Parent ]
Disagree (0.00 / 0)
If you look at exit polls of recent primary states, it's the Hillary supporters who are switching to McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nod.  It's remarkably stubborn and short-sighted.  Obama supporters would have much less of a  problem backing Hillary as the nominee.

As for the whole "women against Obama" meme, he's run 6 points behind Hillary for the women's vote.  Not a bad showing.

I don't doubt that boomer women be on board as the summer and general election season progresses.  My hunch is that it'll be a cold day in hell before women vote to put another Alito on the Supreme Court.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Over the last six weeks there has been hope that somehow the primary would finally come to an end before this gets worse. But over the last two weeks it seems clear the divide is widening, not closing, and the intra-party squabbling is escalating dangerous.

I also agree that Hillary is the only one now who can heal this, and there is very little evidence to suggest she is interested in doing that.

We are in very big trouble.

[ Parent ]
No it is up to Obama (0.00 / 0)
the US set the tone for how they treated Germany and Japan after the war...magnanimously...and Obama is not doing that.

If he had agreed to sit all of Florida and Michigan he would still be ahead....do you know how mcu good feelings that would have genrated...a lot...fighting them for vote he didn't get was petty and triumphalist....

When it comes to women he's starting to remind me of what Abba Eban used to say about the Palestinians...they never lost an lost oppurtunity to lose an oppurtunity.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 5)
A) We have to remind people that McCain is anti-choice and is no feminist.
B) We have to remind people that Obama's wife is a strong woman and would not put up with a misogynist.

But I don't blame women for being frustrated. They wanted one of their own to break the glass ceiling. They see Hillary as someone who was wronged by a man (Bill) but she still prevailed only to lose to another man.

These are two lines we must pursue: A) Obama is good for women, and better than McCain, and B) Yes Hillary's base is not happy, and understandably so, but should not shoot themselves and America in the foot by abandoning Obama.

Obama won the election fair and square and America and women will be better off under Obama than McCain.  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  

I'm in that demographic (4.00 / 8)
White woman of a certain age. I think it would be nice to have a woman president.

But I don't have my heart set on it. What I want foremost is an antiwar president, and then a liberal and a Democrat and some other things, and if that person is a woman, better yet. Senator Clinton hasn't been antiwar in her voting. I'd vote for her over a Republican with a similar voting record, but I'd rather vote for someone who's more likely to do as president what I want done.

I don't get the emotional attachment, the bonding, that some women seem to feel. She isn't me; I'm not her.

But what do I know. I don't even like wedding showers.

[ Parent ]
Though that's kind of the problem (4.00 / 3)
Obama hasn't been particularly antiwar in his voting, either.  Both of them are going to need significant pressure on them from all Democratic consitituencies to change anything.
[ Parent ]
I guess you have nothing to offer them (2.00 / 2)
but fear and patronizing ("Ms Obama will be a great first lady").

Good luck with that.  

[ Parent ]
After the Poverty Tour (4.00 / 4)
He should go on a Feminist Tour, highlighting women's issues and distinguishing himself from McCain on these issues.

John McCain won't insure children
Well we can blame Hillary herself for this.... (2.67 / 3)
Notice how in March, when he was trouncing her, his numbers were high... then came the kitchen sink and the victim crapola and now she's wrangled her supporters in a corner and trying to hold the party hostage so that she can get the nomination by force.

She fed them false hope that she was still viable, even when she wasn't... and now they all blame him, even though she had lost it early on.

We will do what we can, but her dividing the party to feed her own selfish ego will make it much more difficult for us.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

I think you've hit on something important here (4.00 / 9)
Hillary's actions at best SEEM cynically self-interested to those outside of her camp, and her supporters seem to be blind to this.  This divide is one of the things that has lead to the escalation of bitterness on both sides.

John McCain.  Wrong for America.
[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)


We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
She's in it to win! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
So where does your anger get us? (0.00 / 0)
How does that help us beat McCain?  

We won the Battle. Now the Real Fight for Change Begins. Join MoveOn.org and fight for progressive change.  
[ Parent ]
I think both camps share some blame... (4.00 / 12)
I was an Edwards supporter, because while I would love to see a woman president, I rated a progressive president as more important at this precise point in our nation's history than breaking that particular glass ceiling.

After Edwards dropped out, I was torn, because I didn't like Clinton's ties to special interests, but I didn't like Obama's post-partisan rhetoric either.  I remembered too well voting for another charismatic, post-partisan Democrat in 1992 who was known then as the man from Hope.

So I kind of sat back on my heels and watched and listened and waited to see how the nominating process would work its way out.  Ironically, enough, it was then that I started to tilt more Hillary Clinton's way.  Not because of any great moves by her campaign, but because of the arrogance and rudeness I observed in Obama supporters in the blogosphere, especially toward Edwards and the misogynistic comments I started reading about Hillary Clinton.

As time wore on, I was reminded of the reasons I initially rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, and I have not liked the way her campaign has used the gender card at times as a weapon, when Clinton herself seemed so determined to run away from the sort of discussion about gender that Obama was forced to have about race after the Rev. Wright episode.  And the last few weeks have completely worn away any good will I had left for her.

However, I have been deeply offended by the level of misogynistic vitriol that so many think is perfectly acceptable to be used  against Clinton because they consider her a bad person.  I have read epithets used to describe her  that are every bit as wrong and offensive as the n word but are considered okay because open misogyny is socially acceptable in the larger society in a way that open racism is not.

I think once Clinton's campaign is over and she is no longer the center of the conversation (and the vitriol) a lot of those Boomer women will probably come back to OBama, but if he and his supporters want them to come back enthusiastically, some respect for the dream that has been postponed needs to be shown.  

Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot...

Obama will be the nominee. Obama's supporters need to show they understand that while his historic candidacy is the fulfillment of one dream, it is the death of another -- and I don't mean Hillary Clinton's personal ambition, but the dream of millions of women to finally see a woman as President.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance


[ Parent ]
Well put, Katerina. (4.00 / 2)

if he and his supporters want them to come back enthusiastically, some respect for the dream that has been postponed needs to be shown...

...

 Obama's supporters need to show they understand that while his historic candidacy is the fulfillment of one dream, it is the death of another -- and I don't mean Hillary Clinton's personal ambition, but the dream of millions of women to finally see a woman as President.

 

 Obama speechwriters, are you taking notes?   Add in a few references to his grandmother, his mother, wife and 2 young daughters, and it could be quite powerful.



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
[ Parent ]
Even though you unfarily troll rated me... (4.00 / 1)
...I uprated you, 'cos you are right.  Let's hope Obama takes your advice.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Oh, Right! (4.00 / 3)
Let's just make women another political ploy. Let's just find a way - after nearly two years - to insert his white mother somewhere into the post-primary race, so that he can use her to woo white boomer women to vote for HIM in a GE. Patronizing, arrogant, with little real respect for women. That's the ticket!

That takes an incredible amount of gall and arrogance, I must say. And it smacks of the worst old-style male politics women have been forced to endure for generations.

I don't see Obama as a feminist in any way, shape or form. He has not one single woman in a leadership capacity in his campaign. And his male advisers just keep sticking it to women with the language they choose to express their ever-so wise thoughts (Plouffe's comment today about not wanting to create "hysteria" over the DNC's RBC meeeting). This guy is an ad guy, so don't tell me he doesn't understand the power and significance of words - how to use them, what words to use and when.

[ Parent ]
Not what I meant. (4.00 / 1)

What Katerina wrote was powerful and deeply moving.   There are two clashing dreams this year, and each can only be fulfilled at the expense of the other.  

When the Democratic nomination is settled, it would be appropriate and necessary for the winning nominee to acknowledge that one dream came at the expense of the other; it would be the politically savvy thing to do, and the right thing for the party, the progressive movement and the nation. 

If Obama is the one giving that speech,  it would be odd if he didn't talk about what that denied dream might have meant to his mother, and what it means to his daughters and their future. 

 If it's only a political ploy, it can still be used to push for women's issues and, among other things, a woman VP.

 



John McCain thinks we haven't spent enough time in Iraq
[ Parent ]
The dream is not dead... (4.00 / 1)
...not by a long shot.  It's merely postponed.  Hillary probably wasn't the best choice to be the first serious presidential candidate... there will be much better candidates down the pike... much, much better candidates.

Nothing happens all at once.  Barack had predecessors... Sharpton, Jesse Jackson (the most successful AA candidate before him)...  Hillary broke new ground. The next female candidate has the potential to win in a landslide.

and I am looking forward to supporting her with full vigor!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Hillary has her predecessors too... (4.00 / 1)
Actually, eight in all:

Victoria Woodhull, Belva Lockwood, Margaret Chase Smith, Shirley Chisholm, Patricia Schroeder, Lenora Fulani, Elizabeth Dole, and Carol Moseley Braun.  

I hope that you're right and the dream of a woman president will not be postponed too long, but I think this election will be special.  The same forces that make Chris predict a possible progressive window will put some very necessary wind at the back of the historical candidacy of Obama.  One reason I believe Hillary Clinton is fighting so hard past when anyone really thinks she can win to become the nominee is that I think she realizes that that same wind would have been the best chance to elect a woman president -- probably for a long time to come.

Still, I am hopeful that the time will come someday.  Seeing how quickly attitudes have shifted on the gay marriage issue makes you realize that tipping points can be reached without anyone really realizing it until you're on the other side.  Let's hope that Hillary Clinton's candidacy has finally made it possible for people to take a female candidacy seriously and that gender will be less of an issue in that campaign than it was in this one.

John McCain doesn't think kids need health insurance


[ Parent ]
Thank you for the history lesson... (0.00 / 0)
...I was unaware of Dole, and I only knew of Mosely-Braun which was a long time ago.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
She's responsible for sexism? (4.00 / 2)
Right. Cute.

Did you read anything that's been linked to here?

[ Parent ]
What does sexism have anything to do with this? (4.00 / 2)
She gave her supporters false hope and promised something she couldn't deliver after February... the nomination.  There was no way she was going to catch up, but she kept going, kept attacking Obama, making him out to be the villain, the guy stepping on her destiny, even though he had an insurmountable lead well before she fanned the flames.

So, is it any wonder that her supporters resent him way more now than they did 3 months ago, when he was just a "rock star" or whatever?  The Hillary campaign worked very hard to damage his credibility.

So, now, everyone is bunkered down... Obama is getting vilified from Hillary supporters for having the audacity to get votes, and the only person who can fix it the one who fueled the fire of this mess.

It's going to get even uglier.

 

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Sexism is just an excuse (0.00 / 0)
See my comment above.  Hillary is trying to fool people into thinking she just lost because of sexism.  She lost because because of her vote for the war (and refusal to apologize for it), and because of a dumb campaign strategy that failed to utilize technology, or have a basic understanding of the rules.  Hillary had enormous advantages, not least of which is having a popular former president as a spouse.  Let's face it, if Hillary either did an Edwards-esque mea culpa on the war, or organized support in the caucus states, she'd be the nominee.  She didn't, and she blew it.  She misread the electorate, and misread the primary system.

From Matthews and other talking heads, those talking up sexism do have a point, but it's no worse than all the "is he American enough" rubbish out there about Obama.  Hillary's loss is her own damn fault.

[ Parent ]
you can not blame her for his deficiencies (0.00 / 0)
anr supporters push her on...and the fact that you don't realize how ardent is their support for her..is an insult to her and to them....It is not only Obama whose supporters love him.

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller
[ Parent ]
Everything depends on what happens in the next month (4.00 / 1)
Even if Hillary goes to the convention and even if Obama was to make no further progress in reaching out to Hillary supporters, we still ought to be able to eek out a Dem victory. But, I want more than eeking out- I want a trouncing, I want a blue rolling tide- I want women on board.

The difference depends on what Hillary does and what Hillary does may depend on what signals Obama sends or what things Obama is willing to give. I am not opposed to an Obama-Hillary ticket if that's what it takes.

We need to unify- we can't have Clinton surrogates throwing grenades from now til November, and her supporters have to feel respected and wanted in the Obama campaign. We aren't there yet- we aren't even close. So much depends on what Hillary decides to do and what her real non-negotiables are.

Hillary cannot deliver her supporters (4.00 / 1)
Put it out of your head that Hillary has a magic wand, and when she waves it her supporters will back Obama. It has gone way beyond her power to heal.

I did not realize how serious it was until I talked to a friend who said that she would not support Obama because she thought that a Democratic congress would fold for Obama and he would destroy social security and a lot of other bad stuff, while the Dems, with increased numbers, would stand up to McCain. That is why the McCain boogey man rhetoric will not work.

If Obama wants her vote he has to convince my friend that he will protect Social Security, that he is not a bully, and the he will appoint judges who will defend reproductive rights, because right now my friend doesn't believe any of that.

Hillary does not have the power to deliver my friend, only Obama can put this right.  

[ Parent ]
Hillary can make it easier for Obama (4.00 / 2)
No, Hillary does not have a magic wand, but Hillary and her surrogates can make people like your friend much more difficult to win over.  
[ Parent ]
It's gonna take two (4.00 / 2)
Hillary must help too. She can start by getting down to Florida and helping to turn it around for Obama.

If 'your friend' doesn't believe Obama is pro-choice, based on every single vote he's ever cast on the subject, as well as everything he's ever said about it, there obviously isn't anything Obama can do to convince her. However, Hillary pointing out that the alternative to Obama is 'bloody wire coathangers' McCain might have an impact.

[ Parent ]
Maybe you could help in the cause (4.00 / 4)
of convincing your friend that Obama will protect social security. You could point to the debate where Hillary blasted Obama for saying he would raise the cap on taxes for the wealthiest Americans so that social security would be solvent for good.

He's flatly rejected privatization. It'd be a big help for people by word-of-mouth to bat down these misconceptions that people have. Especially if you yourself care about social security and don't want to see a president McCain in office destroying it.  

[ Parent ]
Your Friend Sounds Like A Bright Woman... (4.00 / 1)
There are quite a lot of us out here, too. And I think you are also right about Clinton not being able to deliver. But, it isn't her job to talk to women about the issues they care about: SS, pensions, health care, wage and employment equity, sexual harassment, education opportunities, income inequities.

Obama has never shown an interest in discussing these concerns and he has done ZERO in the U.S. Senate to even put forth legislation on them. And he and his surrogates just keep stepping in the moose muffins when it comes to language/words, attitudes toward women.

We won't vote for John McCain, but women are fed up with the Democrats this time around, too, and it is beyond the fact that HRC might lose the nomination. People who believe this is what this is about have seriously dismissed the problems and have seriously underestimated the anger at DNC, at Party elders/leaders, at Obama, at the media for ongoing and rampant sexism/misogyny. Trading one form of "ism" for another - as even Dems now have fallen for - is going to cost the Democrats.

Perhaps this, too, is historic. Women represent real change in our top power institutions. Perhaps this is indeed a "change" election...

[ Parent ]
With all due respect (4.00 / 1)
but your friend is, at best, incredibly ignorant, and at worst just an idiot, if she believes that he'll do any of these things, because there is absolutely no basis for believing any of it. It's like the old story about the politician who demanded that his opponent deny that he beat his wife, not because there was any basis to believe that he did, but to create the impression that he did. Low-information morons tend to fall for that kind of crap.

Obama will surely do what he can to reassure weak-minded low-information voters that he won't destroy social security or overturn Roe v. Wade (how someone can call themselves a Democrat and fear that he might do this will forever be beyond me), but there will clearly be some who won't buy it, and either vote for John McCain, or not vote at all. There will always be such types.

I have this one friend who, while quite smart, is incredibly ignorant about politics beyond the headlines, and supports Clinton because, of all reasons, she believes that she's better on foreign policy--even though she herself is against the war. Go figure.

Note--I only speak this bluntly with people who are sophisticated about politics. When I talk to low-information types, I'm much, much more gracious, patient and sympathetic--even if I'm screaming inside "how stupid can a person possibly be--do you even read a paper?!?". (This applies equally to men and women, btw. My disgust with ignorant and stupid people is gender-blind.)

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton

[ Parent ]
Hillary is going to gut affirmative action and bring back Jim Crow... (4.00 / 1)
I won't vote for Clinton if she wins because it is apparent she would bring back Jim Crow laws and appoint judges that won't protect minority rights. The internet loves Obama so I also imagine she will fight against Net Neutrality. She will also assuredly get us into a war with Iran.  She is obviously pro-NAFTA and pro-DADT since her husband passed those horrid ideas.  Even though she says she is against the Columbian free-trade pact, I know Mark Penn will make sure it passes.

If Hillary wants my vote she has a lot to convince me.  

Oh and John McCain is obviously more likely to bring all this about, but I would still vote for him because she beat Obama and it hurt my feelings.

[ Parent ]
Balance (4.00 / 2)
When Hillary supporters complain about Barack supporters, it is easy to spiral down into inane arguments about who did what to whom.

The difference, of course, is most everyone sees Barack has won.  It is so easy for Obama supporters to just dismiss the politics of the past few months; after all, we got the result we wanted.  Clinton supporters don't have this luxury.  

I'm not offering any solution.  I like the few suggestions Clinton supporters have made above and would like to see more on exactly what we can do to help mend the wound.  Personally, I haven't a clue other then to be good winners.

For starters... (4.00 / 2)
  ...I'd like to hear Hillary Clinton go after John McCain a little more often than once a month.

 Part of the reason I can't support Hillary is that she hasn't convinced me that she'd really go after McCain. There's little or no differentiation between the two on Iraq -- and that's a MAJOR problem (see: Kerry, John). And all her asinine praise of McCain (a truly evil man) is going to blow up in her face in the general.

 McCain is Clinton's "friend". Is that what we want?
 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Small corection to the OP (4.00 / 4)

Women of working age who grew up on choice and first wave feminism and strong glass ceilings...

If you grew up on first wave feminism, you're really, really old by now.