On Female Hillary Supporters and Sarah Palin

by: Adam Bink

Fri Aug 29, 2008 at 22:04


I just had two interesting discussions with my mom and my sister, both of whom were Hillary supporters in the primary, that really got my thoughts going on what McCain is trying to do with this pick, and why it's set up to fail.

I've seen the polling that says only 66% of Hillary supporters are supporting Obama, and 27% are backing McCain, and I think that's the biggest reason for this pick. McCain and his advisers obviously see an opening there. Palin brings nothing else to her table, since her age doesn't matter because she has zero qualification in terms of experience. So let me tell you what I think he's attempting with former female Clinton supporters, and the likelihood of pulling it off.

Adam Bink :: On Female Hillary Supporters and Sarah Palin
It seems to me there are are a few kinds of female supporters of Hillary Clinton in the primary. These are without respect to party.

1. Women who are for Hillary Clinton because she is Hillary Clinton, no more, no less. These women trust Clinton, think she is an experienced leader who has worked on serious issues for a long time and has a record of accomplishment, including her efforts on health care in the White House. They supported Clinton in part because they believe Barack Obama is too inexperienced.

2. Women who are for Hillary Clinton because she is a strong, tough woman. They are more likely to be self-dubbed feminists, and very progressive on women's issues. They believe it's time for a woman in the White House, and that is high on their list in terms of choosing a candidate to support. These women are also very likely to agree that the media was very sexist in the primary, and be outspoken about it.

3. Women who are for Hillary Clinton because they want a woman in the White House, but aren't necessarily die-hard feminists who march for Roe. They are less oriented in terms of women's issues. These women think it's time for a woman, but aren't impassioned die-hards for that cause. A female candidate would impact their decision, but not in the way it would a #2 supporter.

McCain likely sees an opening among #1 types. There are some who think experience is extremely important, and if Obama doesn't have it and McCain does, irrespectively of party, some women will go for him. But I don't know where Palin comes in to help with those types of women. If they were taking a close look at McCain because of his experience, Palin certainly made them gag. There's no way these kinds of Hillary supporters are going to nod approvingly at former mayor of a town with a population of a small liberal arts college, with no real record of accomplishment as governor.

As for #2 and #3 types, Palin isn't going to help much. First, #2 types are for Clinton because she is strong and tough, and they emphathize with her battles with the media and conservatives throughout the years, and what she took during the Lewinsky ordeal. Palin doesn't bring any of that, and is a beauty queen, to boot. Not exactly a shining beacon of tough women standing up for themselves. On top of that, these women aren't exactly idiots. They do, you know, actually care about her positions on choice and equal pay and workplace discrimination. To some, the pick of Palin is an insult to them. My mom put it best:

I take it as a slap to women everywhere, it's saying you want a woman on the tix, here's one. They're all interchangeable. Never mind her measly BA degree and her 1.5 years, she's female and that'll sell the tix, especially to Hillary fans. Bull, isn't it, it's warped white conservative male thinking I swear.

There are probably also a lot of #2s and #3s who are mothers. Some could be single mothers, balancing work and home, and some with partners or husbands. The McCain campaign may try and trumpet all of her balancing work and home, but I think it will backfire. My sister, who I would classify as a mix of #1 and #2, really said what makes me think this:

Her 4 month old has Down's Syndrome?? Are you kidding me? Talk about family values, she's basically dumping her kids to become VP? her husband works, he's not home with them! Unbelievable. one of the mommies in my WNY mommies group says, I only have 3 and I can't find time to take a shower! She's LOSING mom's votes right there in my opinion.

As for #3s, I think Palin is most appealing to them. Perhaps some of them are thinking, if not President, ok Vice President. And Palin's record on women's issues won't turn them off. Sure. But of the women in the polling I cited above, I happen to think this number is the smallest, as well as the least enthusiastic for McCain or Obama. I think these are the types who weren't very active in the primary, weren't raising money and attending house parties like the ones who were because they were excited Hillary was running.

In other words, there are more women who were excited for Hillary as a candidate, or excited for a strong, progressive, tough woman, than there were women who just wanted a woman in the White House, and as long as there's a woman on the ticket, that will help with them. I just get the feeling the any-will-do women (of which, following my mother's wisdom, there aren't very many at all) aren't the kind of get up and get seriously active for Palin, or really anyone.

Lastly, with #2s and #3s, I happen to think 90% of people don't think of a Vice President in the voting booth. They are focused on the two candidates, with a few exceptions, such as when my sister and some of my friends told me "I like Hillary in part because she's got Bill, and he's great." But Sarah Palin is no Bill Clinton. Sarah Palin is going to have to spend some time just introducing herself to people before they'll be interested in taking the time to go to an event with her. That also goes for Republican activists, a lot of whom are wondering who the hell this person is. She isn't exactly a Rick Santorum who has built a national profile. But even after all that, she's going to raise money, attack Obama, and do town hall meetings. That's mostly what Vice Presidential nominees do.

The 10% of people who do stop and think about the whole picture are likely to factor in that McCain could buy the farm any day. Sure, then they'd think of Palin. They'd also think of her complete lack of qualification to be President. My first thought when I heard about Palin today was "seriously?" My second thought was "you know, speaking as a private citizen, Sarah Palin is not qualified to be my President. She's not ready to run this country." I think a lot of people are going to think that as the second thought after "McCain is pretty freaking old."

I'd be very interested to hear thoughts, and please go easy on any chauvinist accusations. I obviously haven't done focus groups, and these are gut and personal observations not meant to characterize all women. Personal anecdotes are particularly welcome. What are you hearing from your family and friends?


Tags: , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
I think we may have the same mom nt (4.00 / 2)


Me too. (0.00 / 0)
To say my mother was insulted by this pick would not be nearly strong enough.  I believe she called it "crass" and "cynical."

[ Parent ]
Ditto that and raise you on the sister (0.00 / 0)
only difference is they weren't Hillary supporters in the primary. My mom was Obama (but not fanatical about it but is definitely a feminist) and my sister was neutral.  

[ Parent ]
If that's true then (4.00 / 1)
Mom has some 'splainin' to do :D

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers


[ Parent ]
And I may actually BE your mom (4.00 / 12)
I suppose I don't fall into any of these categories -- I voted for Obama in the primary, but out of a small preference -- I always knew I could and would enthusiastically support whichever of them won the nomination.

On the other hand, I am a 50-something life-long feminist.  And I would have been really thrilled in a visceral way to see Clinton running at the top of the ticket and in the White House.

I have to admit that I never did understand the Clinton supporters who said that it would be an insult if Obama chose a woman that wasn't Clinton -- I really didn't think that he would be saying that all women were interchangeable, or calculating that any woman would appeal to Clinton's women supporters.  I thought there were other qualified women -- maybe none of them AS qualified as Clinton at least by the same measures of qualification, certainly none of them with the exact same set of strengths and skills and qualities -- but clearly qualified.

I started out the day in WTF? mode -- my first reaction was that the Palin pick was idiotic and sort of funny and definitely good news.  But as the day has gone on, I've gotten angrier and angrier.  I don't know whether that would have happened anyway, or if it's in part a reaction to watching the idiot pundits and newscasters talking about this as if it's a reasonable and serious move by McCain -- saying that this makes for an interesting race, and apparently entertaining the notion that her inexperience is unimportant, or pretending that she's not really as inexperienced as she is, or asserting some bizarre standard by which she is actually as experienced as (or more experienced than) Obama.

It is actually worse than your mom said.  It isn't that he said "You want a woman on the ticket, here's one."  It's that he said "You want a woman on the ticket, here's one that is clearly not the best choice, here's one that is clearly not the best choice even just among women, here's one that is not even a good choice -- so now you've been given what you said you want, get on board."  As Debbie Wasserman Schultz said today, it's as though he thinks that women are so stupid and short-sighted as to just want anyone with the same parts that we have.

There is not an inexhaustible supply of qualified, competent women (just as there is not really an inexhaustible supply of qualified, competent men).  And there probably aren't any Republican women that I'd even consider voting for.  But there are some (Kay Hutchinson, Christie Whitman, Condi Rice, probably some from business or the military) that wouldn't be this kind of insult.

It's a slap in the face on the order of nominating Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.  It's uglier than I can express.  And I'm clearly still just getting angrier and angrier...


[ Parent ]
Interesting perspective (0.00 / 0)
I was thinking that McCain's decision to wait so long was a mistake, because I knew he was waiting to see if Obama would pick a woman, and thinks he would be forced to pick a non-white male if that were the case. But I thought that was a mistake because given that Jindal declined, and J.C. Watts I think was making too much money, and all of the qualified female candidates were too moderate (Whitman, Collins, Snowe) or too old (Hutchinson or too inexperienced (Palin), he would have to pick a white male anyway and might as well just do it. That's just the makeup of his team, deal with it. Evidently McCain didn't care about the inexperience part.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
I can't see Collins & Snowe even considered (0.00 / 0)
Even aside from being pro-choice, which would have disqualified them after the reaction to Ridge, either would not only do nothing to swing Maine, but would hand another Senate seat to the Dems.  Both are only staying in as legacies, because middle-of-the-road voters who don't think much about party control of Congress and cloture votes think they're "nice people".  If the election was held with any new faces, even if they were clones of Collins or Snowe, it would go overwhelmingly Democratic.

[ Parent ]
The strong and tough category (4.00 / 2)
Palin is plenty strong and tough. You don't get to be a governor of any state by being a pushover. She was a basketball competitor, and a mayor at age 32. She hunts caribou and worked on a fishing boat. She's an action gal and the campaign will be playing that to the max.

Perhaps (0.00 / 0)
But it takes a long time to introduce her to voters, and longer to convince them. Particularly the ones who are disconnected. It's not going to be done with one ad showing her hunting and signing legislation.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
Have you read how she became Gov (4.00 / 1)
She beat an awful Repub. in the primary and won the general because Alaska is as red as it gets.  She was the mayor of a town of 5500 people that has a bar with bullet holes in its sign.  She is being investigated by her state legislature for a scandal that reads like a Jerry Springer episode or just another George Bush croynism scandal.  

Obama should say nice things about her and then let the country settle in on who she is and how truely unqualified she is to be president.  There are at least eight Repub. women who are far more qualified to be VP or President. No make that nine, my mother raised five kids and then got her nursing degree, I'd feel better about her being VP.  I'm  all for a woman being nominated by either party, but at least pick one that is in the top ten most qualified or more qualified than my mother.  


[ Parent ]
The scandal... (0.00 / 0)
To me, it reads more like the pulp fiction the troglodytes in Richard Mellon Scaife's Arkansas Project scribbled about Bill Clinton for publication in Scaife's scurrilous American Spectator, wherefrom it filtered up into the wingnut and then the mainstream media -- only in this case, it's not fiction.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
Re: As for #3s, I think Palin is most appealing to them. (4.00 / 1)
Even for #3s, I still don't think Palin is a compelling choice.  How inspiring can a woman playing second fiddle to an old, incompetent white man really be?

How many are low-info voters (4.00 / 3)
Or perhaps voters who don't have a lot of time to analyze the candidates - and how do we make sure they get the right message

We need direct messages - things like how Palin would make her daughter to have a child even if it were the result of rape.

Otherwise, Palin's family story is appealing to many - as it is a happy American story.


<GAG> (4.00 / 2)
That makes her little better than a rapist herself.  The real, fundamental issue with abortion is not at what point a fetus becomes a person, but who owns a pregnant woman's body: her, the fetus, her parents, her husband, the government?  The only acceptable answer, AFAIC, is "she does;" anything else is slavery.  Palin obviously subscribes to the theory that children are the property of their parents: a daughter is a form of livestock, and her owners (parents) have the right to breed her if they so desire.

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
my mom called *me* to talk about politics today (4.00 / 7)
she was very upset and offended by McCain's choice.  She isn't very political, but she is whip smart and really liked Hillary Clinton.  I think it is finally beginning to sink in for her how manipulative and shameless the GOP is - she was Republican until registering Independent a couple years ago.

She is really not impressed w/Palin.  She made some comment about her not being smart enough to stop having kids, because of her age and demanding job.  I know, not very PC.  Kinda surprised me, but I understood what she meant.

It should be interesting, to say the least, how this all plays out.


The one HRC holdout that I know has committed to Obama (4.00 / 8)
as a result of this pick.

"Never separate the life you live from the words you speak" -Paul Wellstone

That polling was done pre-convention. (0.00 / 0)
Here is a more up-to-date story:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes...

The splitters are now splitting among themselves.

Montani semper liberi


I can only speak .. (4.00 / 5)
for the reactions of women I talk to .. but there seems to be a bit of WTF?? to it. .. it's like you are the Colts .. and dress Peyton Manning in Jim Sorgi's uniform and try and fool the Patriots .. it's just batty on so many levels .. Palin hates polar bears .. hates clean drinking water .. I could go on

I don't get sports references (4.00 / 2)
But I think I agree with you. This is obvious tokenism and everyone sees it. My mother was disgusted. Women I know - almost all of whom supported Clinton - are disturbed, not enticed, by this obvious political ploy.

If this pick is supposed to change the minds of American women, then maybe Republicans don't understand the women of this country. Also, the sky is blue, grass is green and so on...

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
I see creepy echoes (4.00 / 3)
Creepy echoes of Anna Nichole Smith and her ancient husband when Palin and McCain are paired. Not sure the subliminal feel of that will appeal to any Hillary supporters, whether they be 1, 2, or 3.

I'm wondering if McCain, or whoever actually made this decision for him, was snookered by the spin generated by their own side and its obedient media. They were the ones flogging the "unreconciled Hillary supporters" story; they were the ones providing the PUMAs with their 14.5 minutes of fame (time's about up!). This might have been canny politicking, but I am not convinced it was ever true. The political distance between Clinton and McCain is too great to believe it is easily leaped by people who were passionately behind Clinton in the primaries. That requires a combination of an extraordinarily low of information combined with a high level of political passion that you just don't usually see in the same body. To think that 27% of 18 million have this combination is not particularly believable.



No society that feeds its children on tales of successful violence can expect them not to believe that violence in the end is rewarded. -Margaret Mead


When did he make this choice? (4.00 / 3)
While watching "the" speech last night I said McSame's speech writers and campaign are gagging trying to figure out how to one-up this speech.

I felt the pick of Palin was a last minute choice made while Obama was thrilling the crowds in Denver and around the world.

I like your analysis but I'm not sure the McSame campaign gave this pick  the thought you gave it :-)...

Lynn


[ Parent ]
Last night (4.00 / 1)
Thanks much.

I agree. Pawlenty canceled his Friday events early Thursday, and I don't believe the McCain people are smart enough or have any reason to do a headfake, so I think it was him up until McCain gawked at the stadium and 80,000 and thought he needed a game-changer.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter


[ Parent ]
Too lazy to link (0.00 / 0)
but RandySF at Kos has a recommended diary that ABC reported the decision was made last night.

John McCain won't insure children

[ Parent ]
I think .. (0.00 / 0)
it was a last minute decision .. maybe not last night .. but with in the last 2 weeks .. Pawlenty might be bland .. but he's an obedient little wingnut .. so for him to be pissed .. that says something .. it would seem that McCain's polling is in the crapper .. if they are throwing a Hail Mary like this

[ Parent ]
my update (0.00 / 0)
I read that he asked her Thursday morning so now I have a new take.

As a mom, I loved seeing Obama's children talk to him on the screen after Michelle's speech - "I love you daddy" was so unscripted and perfect...

Now methinks McSame wanted a woman with children - lots more children than Obama has - to counter Michelle - not to counter Biden!

Lynn
http://growolderbetter.com


[ Parent ]
Part of me really loves this idea (4.00 / 1)
Wouldn't it be just too delicious if McCain made this pick because he was watching all the press coverage of Dem disunity and thought this was the way to exploit it. The base let him down. :)


[ Parent ]
Well he does have (0.00 / 0)
one demographic locked up with this pick:

http://www.hotchickswithdouche...

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Are There Echoes of Gay Porn in the Obama/Biden Pairing? (0.00 / 0)
I mean, they are both big, strapping men...standing side by side....can't you just picture them shirtless, their manly chests glistening with oil...oh, wait, is this an undignified way to talk about the Dem ticket for President & VP?  Why, yes, it is!

But making a Anna Nicole Smith/her ancient husband comparison is somehow appropriate and can be thrown out there without comment (well, until now, I suppose).  I can't imagine how the subliminal message you suggest would do anything but gross out Hilary supporters anyway.  The only ones that it appeals to are very old men who jerk-off to Juggs!

Hilary supporters will reject the McCain/Palin ticket as a rejection of the right-wing.  Palin doesn't support the same issues that the vast majority of feminists support.  But the need to disrespect her in a sexual way (your Anna Nicole Smith comparison; all the talk of her looks; her beauty queen past; the suggestion that McCain picked her because he, like, totally wants to do it with the hawt gov!) is not only sexist to the core, but results in images of a naked John McCain running about our heads!!!!  Just when I got over Billo and the falaphel!

For the love of all that's holy, please attack this ticket on the full glory of its right-wing kookery and ixnay on the sexual fetishization of Sarah Palin as some kind of legitimate form of political discourse.


[ Parent ]
I'm a No. 2 on your list (3.20 / 5)
And I don't at all get the "It's a slap in the face to women."

One of the things that feminists advocate for is the inclusion of more women at all levels of society. Yours is one of the few sane voices right now, trying to articulate the Sarah Palin choice without resorting to this kind of hateful, narrow-minded language.

I've often been critical of Democrats because I think they get blindered by one view of feminism -- that put forth by Democrats. Palin's naming as McCain's VP is, sadly, one of those cases and it really gets me in the heart that we can't get beyond the notion that Democrats = good for women; Republicans = bad for women. The reality is far more complex and "nuanced" than this simplistic view.

From my perspective as a feminist, I see women as the future of our politics, of our society and of our world. To me personally, this is "change we can believe in." I'm no newcomer to this view. I have advocated this belief nearly all my adult life. Maybe it's because I fought so hard to get a non-traditional job when I was young and worked within my company to get more women hired in such positions, to acknowledge the gaping pay and promotional opportunities for women there and negotiate a pay equity clause in the union's contract. NOTE: there is ALSO a big difference between equal pay and pay equity that, sadly, progressives don't seem to even care about anymore.

I don't agree with any of Sarah Palin's conservative views and I certainly don't support John McCain or the Republican presidential ticket.

But I do honor the fact that on some level John McCain seems to get that women represent the future, not the past, by naming Palin as his running mate.

Additionally, I live in the PacNW. We don't see Alaska as a "small" state and we have watched Sarah Palin in her job as governor. She is smart, articulate and tough. And that feminists see this pick as a "slap in the face" is really demeaning and dismissive of both Palin and the progress of women she represents.

Now you have my 2 cents.  


... (4.00 / 6)
How about this - would a man of similar experience and qualifications be an acceptable VP choice?
I think the answer is no, not by a long shot, not in a million years. McCain purposely and consciously passed up other, more qualified politicians because he wanted to 'shake things up' and 'make a big move' and so on. This is not to diminish Palin's own career and achievements, but I do mean to diminish McCain's motivations.

If you lined up the top 15 potential Republican VP picks, and made them all gender neutral, would Palin make the top 5? the top 10?

I think Bowers had it right in a post earlier today - Democrats have a deep field of qualified woman because liberalism is more generally open to women, minorities, gays and lesbians as political leaders. But many Republicans, and I would argue McCain is chief among them, just see it as a political ploy to appeal to diversity. it's a gimmick. It is ALL politics for John McCain. The primary political assets Palin possesses, in the view of McCain, is good looks and a different set of genitals. To argue his decision making process was deeper and more significant than this is a big stretch.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
Uhh, think Tim Kaine (4.00 / 2)
How about this - would a man of similar experience and qualifications be an acceptable VP choice?
I think the answer is no, not by a long shot, not in a million years.

or Mark Warner.

Yeah, inexperience was mentioned about these two. But I sure didn't see thread upon thread about their lack of experience as a VP choice.

Palin is no dummy. I live in the PacNW and we are therefore closer to what goes on in Alaska than most of the rest of America is. I can tell you she's not a bimbo. She's smart, articulate, tough and a quick study. Democrats better wrap their heads around this and stop with the insults.

FTR: I don't agree with Palin's or McCain's conservative ideology. But she will probably do well with working class voters, some union voters, hunters, bowling alley voters, libertarians and some left AND right-leaning independents who see government reform as a big issue.

Also, I'm really sick of the crap about how this appeals to Hillary Clinton's diehard PUMAs as though that's the narrative. I don't think that's the main reason McCain chose her, although it did play a role.

She's icing on the cake from that point of view, but fills the Republican ideology choice perfectly.  



[ Parent ]
Experience and cynicism (4.00 / 5)
One thing about inexperience (to borrow from a post at Kos by Trapper John) is that anyone from Alaska is going to have knowledge and experience deficits on urban issues (crime, transportation, race relations, public schools etc.) and also that AK has almost zero agriculture, which is one of our country's biggest sources of wealth. Obama's IL experience gives him experience from Chicago and agricultural southern IL.  Really any major politician from the lower 48 has more experience than Palin.  

There are a lot of smart accomplished people in this country who are not qualified to be president, Sarah Palin is one of them.

And then ABC reported this decision was made last night after Obama's speech.  She has not been vetted.  He has only met her once or twice.  The more information that has fallen today, the more it's clear that she is a label to McCain who is being deployed cynically and impulsively.  Maybe Kaine would have been a similar choice, but Obama didn't pick Kaine.


John McCain won't insure children


[ Parent ]
The point of this exercise? (0.00 / 0)
I don't understand why, when a woman or minority is offered a position, there is a running of comparisons to white men.

Why not simply evaluate people for who they are, without the sexist comparisons?  Obviously the pool of white men in power is larger, and with such a larger pool of the minority or female or minority candidates can be portrayed as inadequate.  That's one reason affirmative action isn't such a bad idea.

Asking the question "would a white man get this opportunity" is a sexist/racist exercise in itself.

I also fail to see how it "diminishes McCain's motivations" to pick someone in part on the basis of gender than geography, age, etc.


[ Parent ]
The purpose (4.00 / 1)
The purpose is not to attack Palin based on her gender, but to attack McCain based on his motives. If McCain chose Palin simply because she is a woman - and there is little evidence he chose her for other reasons - then shouldn't we decry that attitude that gender and race are to be used as electoral gimmicks? If McCain thinks that is all this is about - diversity as a campaign ploy - then I for one want to call him out on it.

And is it not possible to have a conversation about race or gender without almost immediately resorting to accusing people of sexism or racism? Let's give each other the benefit of the doubt - and if you want a better explanation of what I am saying, just ask for it. I think you will find that I do not desire to unfairly judge or criticize anyone for their race or gender, but this will not stop me from discussing it in sometimes blunt terms.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra


[ Parent ]
Partially agree (0.00 / 0)
I was too strong is stating my view, to the extent it made an accusation of sexism.

As to attacking McCain's motives, I'm sort of at a loss.  There is an obvious demographic element in the McCain choice, but there is in every choice.  I don't see why choosing a Southerner who is less qualified than a Northerner is qualitatively any different than choosing a woman or minority.  He wants to get the PUMA vote.  The PUMA vote, by popular description, wants to have a woman on the ticket.  She has a thin resume, like Obama does.  From the little I've seen of her, she's more intelligent and qualified than Bush, who also had a thin resume.  Aren't these motives just ordinary politics?


[ Parent ]
The PUMA vote was already his. (0.00 / 0)
He gained nothing there.

PUMA is not about Hillary, it is an anti-Obama movement. Read their blogs and see for yourself.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I read the blogs (0.00 / 0)
Pumapac is starting something called the "New Democratic Party" but the site isn't working.  But, the sense I get is that they aren't going to support or endorse McCain.

PUMAs seem pretty fragmented.  There are anti Obama-movement bloggers who aren't PUMA (eg http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/).  Riverdaughter's blog (http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/) is a mixed bag, with posts saying that some don't intend to vote for McCain, and some that seem to lean towards McCain.  A lot of posters on some other blogs are saying (instantly!) that Palin has swung them.  Because these boards probably include a lot of fake posters and trolls, it's hard to say what the average PUMA will do.  It's hard to say how many PUMAs there are, or even what a PUMA is, other than an angry person claiming they used to support Clinton.  And, judging by what I've seen on tv, some prominent PUMAs are dumb as rocks.  God knows what they'll do.


[ Parent ]
They are splintered. (0.00 / 0)
Which was only to be expected. The ones who were truly for Hillary took her advice and switched to Obama. Like me.

The rest have had to abandon the pretense they ever listened to her.

And of course a certain percentage (we'll never know for sure how many) were Republican ratfuckers to begin with.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Disagree again (0.00 / 0)
Just because someone was for Hillary, doesn't mean they need to follow her lead and vote for Obama.

Here is a pretty eloquent pro-Clinton blogger who won't vote Obama:

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/


[ Parent ]
One more point (4.00 / 7)
Had he chosen Baily-Hutchinson or Rice, I think you would see a much different reaction. They are both highly qualified and proven politicians. Palin is not. So what political assets does she possess that makes McCain choose her out of the crowd?  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Next question then, (0.00 / 0)
why did McCain pass over these far more qualified women in choosing Palin?

If he has a case, let's hear him make it.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Youth, energy, reformer (0.00 / 0)
McCain couldn't have energized Republicans by picking Kay Bailey Hutchinson. To match the energy, youth, reformer (change thing-y) of Obama, he had to choose somebody who is young and "different" than what we've seen in politics for centuries, and a reformer who complemented his own maverick brand.

I still don't believe he chose her primarily to get disaffected Clinton supporters. He chose her first because of her staunch conservative social views, second because she isn't a Washington insider, and third because she's a woman.

Is the latter point a slap in the face to women, as so many in the blogosphere and so many prominent Democrats have said? There are those who say "yes" and I respect their opinions. But I also have to say this: Obama spent months trashing Hillary Clinton as an "insider" who represented the politics of the past and building himself up as the great post-partisan candidate. Many of his surrogates and supporters also made it pretty clear where they stand on feminism, too. I know I'll get hammered for this, but this kind of message from Democrats opens the door for selections like Sarah Palin. And if you listen to her, her rhetoric sounds chillingly similar to what Barack Obama said during the primaries. And the thing is, Palin can go head-to-head with him on these points because most of it is true!

I could never support McCain/Palin, because of their politics. OTOH, there are people like me who are still smarting over Obama's trashing of Hillary AND Bill Clinton in a way that completely dismissed any of their accomplishments and their long history of public service, all in a nod to the change/reformer image thing-y.


[ Parent ]
As a male feminist... (4.00 / 5)
I find your statement that "women [are] the future of our politics, of our society and of our world" to be incredibly sexist.  It smacks of the sentiment that turns people off from feminism--that women are better than men, and that's it's more important to have a woman in power than to have a man, no matter their actual views, personality, and qualifications.  If you did not mean in this way, I apologize, but that is the meaning I took from it.

Does Sarah Palin represent the future?  Her hardcore conservative policies incline me to say "no," but we can agree to disagree on that.  But it's clear to me that this criterion was far from McCain's mind when he made this choice.  He wanted to fire up his base by having a wingnut VP, and he thought naming a woman might convince some Hillary Clinton supporters to vote for his ticket.  

I dare anyone to say with a straight face that this was not a purely political decision.


[ Parent ]
Sorry you don't like it (2.67 / 3)
I suspect you don't like/support affirmative action, either. Of course, that's good for African Americans, so maybe I'm wrong.

Why is it that whenever a woman -- a feminist -- pushes for change that is female/feminine centric men get so exercised?

You consider it sexist, but most of the progressive changes that have occurred throughout history have been driven by and organized by women.

Today it is women in poor African countries that are making the inroads in economic prosperity, in spite of the death and destruction perpetrated by men that rains down on them day in and day out.

Women are always far more likely to be prohibited from education in militaristic, paternalistic societies. Why do you suppose that is? Think Afghanistan, for example, or parts of Africa that this occurs. It's because of this that Oprah opened her girls school.  


[ Parent ]
You misunderstood (4.00 / 3)
It may be true that most progressive changes throughout history have been driven by and organized by women (though given the widespread historical discrimination against women, this seems unlikely to me).  It is definitely true that women tend to be more progressive than men, statistically speaking.  But both of those points are irrelevant.  You claimed that women are the future--and given the objective fact that some men are progressive and some women aren't, that claim is sexist.

Why are women far more likely to be prohibited from education in paternalistic societies?  Maybe because they're paternalistic?  It's not as if women are more genetically inclined to be progressive.

And I have no idea why you brought up affirmative action, and then tried to turn this into some sort of race vs gender battle.  FWIW, I support class-based affirmative action (as opposed to race and gender based), but that's neither here nor there.


[ Parent ]
Question (0.00 / 0)
You say:

"most of the progressive changes that have occurred throughout history have been driven by and organized by women."

It may be too large for this messageboard, but I wondered what examples you had in mind, perhaps from American history.


[ Parent ]
Sexist? (0.00 / 0)
The observation seemed pretty sane, and even a little mundane to me.

It's a good thing if the Republicans run a woman.  How is it not?

It is, IMO, a little offensive when women and minorities are bashed for affliating with the Republican party, as if the Democrats owned their souls by tossing them a few crumbs every election cycle and never performing.

Palin does represent a desirable future - that is one in which women are offered more positions of influence in all areas of society.

Whether the choice is "purely political" is irrelevant.  The point is that the political considerations have changed to a point where nominating a woman is politically advantageous to McCain.  That is progress, no matter how backward Palin's views.


[ Parent ]
IMO (4.00 / 1)
it's offensive when women and minorities affiliate with the Republican Party. Anyone who can vote for the party of Katrina and Guantanamo Bay is bad enough, but if they are white and male at least that's an excuse.

The Republican Party is the party of white males, dedicated to the promise of keeping white males on top. So it's understandable, if selfish, for white males to vote for them.

But for women and minorities? The amount of depravity and self-loathing it takes for one of us to vote Republican is unimaginable to me.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Weird (0.00 / 0)
In fact, millions of women affiliate with the Republican party.  The gap between women and men in Democratic affliation is about 6% (the figures I found were 29% Republican affiliation, 35% Republican affiliation).

That's a lot of people to find offensive.  But, then again, it apparently offends your sensibilities when ANYONE is a Republican.  Must be a really strange way to view the world.  Offhand, I'd find it a hateful place to be and I certainly won't join you there.

Do you think that Colin Powell, or even Condi Rice, suffer from depravity and self-loathing?  Do you think that it's degrading for a black person to have a conservative view of international relations and have the desire to pursue a career in foreign polcy?   I, personally, view both of them as examples of social progress in this country, although I don't necessarily admire their personal views.  


[ Parent ]
Maybe you've never heard of Lee Atwater? (0.00 / 0)
he was one of the few honest Republicans and he put it like this:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" -- that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me -- because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

I'll leave it up to you to decide what kind of black person makes a career for themselves inside of a party like that.

Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
Even weirder (0.00 / 0)
Supposedly a quote from a a guy who's been dead fifteen years proves something, but I'm not sure what.  You ignored my comments on gender.  But that's ok.  Let's take race.

I'm not in the practice of judging people I don't know.  However, I don't see any particular signs that Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, or Colin Powell suffer from any psychological conditions, like self-loathing .  Thomas seems quite invested in his views on the Constitution and the role of government.  Are you saying that a white man can have these views and be just mistaken, but a black man can't have them without being self-loathing?  Or are you saying that a black man isn't entitled to make hard choices, and has to forego using his talents in the legal or political realm because some of the people associated on his or her side of the issues he holds dear engage in nasty racial politics?  

Symbolic progress is progress (slower progress than policy advances), no matter where it occurs.  Obama is going to do very little for the African American community.  He's certainly making no promises.  From a policy perspective, he's no different than a white Democrat, and may even be a little more timid in advancing African American causes.  He is a "post racial" candidate in a society that isn't post racial.  I don't see, in terms of "self-loathing" that Obama is different than Colin Powell.  He is forsaking the suffering of the African American community and offering only symbolic progress, when he may find himself in a unique and powerful position to make great advances.  If Obama does nothing for African Americans (not at all unlikely), the scope of the lost opportunity would represent a historic betrayal of the community.  How is forgoing that incredible opportunity, in order to merely to secure his own personal advancement or advance a different set of issues, less an act of depravity or self-loathing than associating with some Republican cause in a minor capacity?

It may just be that people aren't self-loathing or depraved because they don't agree with you.  


[ Parent ]
So you really see nothing wrong with a black person (0.00 / 0)
or a woman, who makes a career with the political party built on hatred of blacks and women? That's normal to you?

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Nuance (0.00 / 0)
I stated in detail my view, and answered the question already.  You don't see to be responding to the nuance or my comments about Obama.

I'll state it more simply: it is my view that there is "nothing wrong" with a woman voting Republican, and go further in saying that it isn't just my view, but it is an obvious fact that it is definitionally normal, as evidenced by tens of millions of women who cast Republican ballots.  It is also my view that, although it is statistically  aberrational for blacks to vote Republican, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, and Clarence Thomas did "nothing wrong" by pursing their careers among people who they identified with in their respective fields most closely ideologically. I think there are good reasons for most minorities to identify more closely with Democratic politics, but no group is homogenous, and there isn't "something wrong" with people who don't follow the norm.  


[ Parent ]
That's because you have nuanced yourself (0.00 / 0)
into a ridiculous position.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Cowardly retreat (0.00 / 0)
is as good a way to end a debate as any other.

Continue to just point your finger at tens of millions of people and say there is "something wrong" with them because you disagree with their personal, constitutionally protected choices, and call positions you don't agree with ridiculous, if that's what makes you feel safe and superior.  Good luck with it.


[ Parent ]
Don't mind if I do. (0.00 / 0)
There is something wrong with any black, female or gay person who casts their lot with the GOP. Deeply, deeply wrong.

Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
Wait a minute (0.00 / 0)
did you just tell me that the man who talked about somebody putting a pubic hair on his coke and talked about "Long Dong Silver" in the workplace does not "suffer from any psychological conditions, like self-loathing?"



Montani semper liberi


[ Parent ]
I agree (0.00 / 0)
Appreciating the fact that the Republicans have chosen a female VP isn't sexist.

Saying that "women are the future" and whatnot, on the other hand, is, and that is what I was referring to.


[ Parent ]
Too bad. (0.00 / 0)
I happen to believe that women ARE the future of change. I think it's scary for men (and a whole lot of women) to admit this, or to even think about it as a possibility. Yet, it's perfectly okay that a male-centric world is seen as normal, normal, normal. The language, the conversation, the goals have been and are so male-centric that even so-called "progressives" seem oblivious to what it does to water down equality.

I find it curious that the MINUTE women (or minorities) make substantial progress in society, all of a sudden we start redefining "progress". We're now talking about politics as "post partisan" and feminism as "post feminist" and racial distinctions as "post racial." A lot, A LOT of Obama women don't even see a need for feminism anymore. They want to reap the rewards of countless years of struggle without accepting the badge that comes to get there.

Frankly, when we say things like this (or, for that matter, that we believe in affirmative action for "class" but not for race/gender), we have just admitted that the right-wing "code" has worked on us for the last 20-plus years.

You may see this as sexist. I don't. I don't have time or space for a history lesson here, but when I read history of previous cultures/societies -- and even those closer to the present -- it seems evident that women-centric societies are those that flourished and flourish today, in spite of what happens around them. "God is a Woman", "First Sex", for example, give voice to these societies/cultures and to this female-centric belief.

Additionally, serious reform movements in our own country (education, for example) were organized and led by women. Even the earliest union movements (coal miners, garment workers, for example) were organized and led by women. The reproductive rights movement was started and organized by women. Public housing movements in early 20th century New York and Chicago were organized and led by women.

Yes, men have been involved and yes, it has taken congressional and legislative action (which has been and is predominantly male) to pass the laws - but only because women could not vote, and did not/could not hold elective office, until relatively recently in our history.



[ Parent ]
Well said! (0.00 / 0)
It used to be that we could honor things like this whether it was in the Republican or Democratic Party. We just can't seem to do this anymore because it seems (at least to me) that it's un-PC to note ANY progress by Republicans. That's just mean, imo.

[ Parent ]
As a Hillary supporter I always said if Obama chose another woman (4.00 / 1)
it would be a slap at Hillary and those who supported her.  Hillary was more than breasts and a uterus....She was a brilliant, powerful, accomplished progressive and humane politician.  

I am thinking that Adam is mostly right....HRC supporters would feel insulted that he thought he would get their votes by just picking 2 more breasts and another uterus.

However there is some shrewd intelligence to this choice.  I think it would mean muffling Joe Biden so as not to make him into another Ric Lazio bullying a woman in a debate.

I think the reform message could still play...investigations need time to uncover and then time to steep into public consciousness...the media is still discussing the boldness of this choice.  

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


[ Parent ]
uprated for ratings abuse (0.00 / 0)
I disagree with some of the views expressed here, but whoever gave this comment a 0 rating does not understand what a troll is.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Yeah really (0.00 / 0)
Adam asked for perspectives on this subject.  mabelle55 responded with a viewpoint that hadn't yet been articulated in the thread.

jon

PS: although as a clarification: I don't disagree with any of mabelle's views.  


[ Parent ]
Correction: (0.00 / 0)
I honor the fact of Sarah Palin's being named as VP running mate to a major political party.

ALSO: I believe that had McCain selected an African American as his running mate, most progressives would have bent over backwards to note the historical nature of it.

Why can't we do the same here and then move on to the issues?


Another repsonse (4.00 / 4)
I can tell you that from my perspective, I would view the choose by McCain of an African American or a Latino to be just as transparent as his choice of a woman. Assuming, of course, that individual had the same dearth of experience as Palin.

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra

[ Parent ]
Because Clinton Lost (4.00 / 1)
Current political conventional wisdom states that there are a lot of female Hillary Clinton supporters who want a woman in the white house.  Based on this, a female VP would give McCain votes in the way an ethnic minority VP wouldn't.

Had Clinton won and chosen, say, Evan Bayh, and then had McCain picked a black VP, you'd be seeing much the same reaction.


[ Parent ]
Hmm (4.00 / 1)
ALSO: I believe that had McCain selected an African American as his running mate, most progressives would have bent over backwards to note the historical nature of it.

I believe that had McCain selected an African American as his running mate, most progressives would be reacting exactly the same way they are reacting right now.


[ Parent ]
Re: HMMM (0.00 / 0)
And I believe that had McCain chosen a black person as his running mate, hell would've frozen over this morning.  The Republicans pay lip service and give you the Condi Rice-Colin Powell consideration bit, but those would have been the only persons considered.  It would certainly not have been some obscure black person with 1 1/2 years of state experience that McCain would have snatched out of nowhere.
But thanks for the chuckle.

[ Parent ]
For one thing, (4.00 / 1)
no black person has ever been selected to run as vp. We already had a woman, many years ago. This is no breakthrough, so what's with the fuss? I have no interest in whether the Republican party finally staggers toward the 20th century.

And speaking just for me, if McCain had chosen a totally zero black man as his running mate I'd have seen it as just as cynical and contrived as I do his desperate choice of Palin. The self-pity among some self-styled feminists is really beginning to wear thin.


[ Parent ]
What black Republican could he have picked, anyway? (4.00 / 1)
Ken Blackwell?  Alan freakin' Keyes?  Can you think of a black Republican who doesn't make Palin look overqualified by comparison?

"A fantasy is not even a wish, much less an act.  There is no such thing as a culpable or shameful fantasy."  -----Lady Sally McGee

[ Parent ]
He'd have picked Michael Steele (0.00 / 0)
and if Obama lost, and McCain picked Steele, yes, almost everyone who supported Obama would be wildly insulted.  

Steele is almost exactly as qualified as Palin, so it's a good comparison.


[ Parent ]
J.C. Watts perhaps (0.00 / 0)
I actually saw Watts's name mentioned in some VP speculation, back when HRC was the odds-on favorite, with the idea the McCain could peel away disaffected black voters. Of course, as a four-term ex-congressman, he has more national political experience than Sarah Palin. And as a former quarterback for the Ottawa Rough Riders, he has more international experience as well.

[ Parent ]
Remember "Is Barack Obama black enough?" (0.00 / 0)
Wrought by all the white male pundits...

What are the odds they'll ask "Is Sarah Palin woman enough?"

...just throwing that out there...

And that kinda sounds like a country song...

"I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that."
-Lawrence Summers


"woman enough"? (0.00 / 0)
Let's see ... runner-up for Miss Alaska (What is it with McCain and "queens"?  Dumped his first wife for a "rodeo queen," and now this.)

I'm reminded of that poster from back in the day, of a naked woman posing coyly with dashes drawn on her, along with the names of the various cuts of meat to be had from her carcass.

So yeah, USDA-certified woman enough.


[ Parent ]
Sadly (0.00 / 0)
I know two former Clinton supporters who feel slighted by the primaries and are seriously considering McCain because of this.  I don't even think they are really thinking through it, and I have no way to discuss it because it becomes so emotional.  I really don't know what to do.  I hope, with some time, it will get better.  Everything I say.  Every fact I bring up is just turned away with the hurt.  I don't even understand the hurt.  I really don't.  I was upset after 2004, but not this much.  Then again, I guess I didn't feel there was racism/sexism/anyism's.

Register two new voters (4.00 / 2)
there is nothing one can do...yeah I too know Clinton supporters considering McCain because of this. My mother had just come around to Obama, now she's back with McCain.

"We need a woman in there"

It doesn't matter who she is or what she believes, just that she's a woman and these folks will even admit that this election is about identity politics to them.

We try our best to win and if we don't, we watch the country fall apart further and hope these people who threw the election to McCain suffer under him the worst.  


[ Parent ]
Good advice on registering two new voters :) (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
What else can we do? (0.00 / 0)
We can't spend the entire campaign trying to knock sense into voters like my mom. We just need to find new voters. Hopefully there are enough

[ Parent ]
There are (0.00 / 0)
and besides that, we can also work on turnout and getting our supporters to the polls early (in early voting states) and on time and in record numbers.  

[ Parent ]
The good news I guess (0.00 / 0)
is this pick is sending a lot of my friends who support Obama back home into a panic. They're willing to do anything now to help him win.

The panic button might have finally been pushed.  


[ Parent ]
Well that's good (4.00 / 2)
But can I make a suggestion? You really need some new friends man! It seems like your entire set of family and friends are the biggest group of Debbie Downers and worry-worts I've ever heard of! Are they the most down-trodden group of people or something, because they seem awfully depressed and convinced that we can't win.

I hope they can cheer up and not let any move by McCain convince them that this is the end and Obama's going to lose. Watch the speech again! Enjoy it! As long as we all do our jobs, Obama will win. I have no doubt.  


[ Parent ]
No (0.00 / 0)
Most of my friends and family were Clinton supporters who back in June wanted nothing more than to see Obama defeated. Most have come around, some completely, but still some are undecided and Palin isn't helping.

What brought my confidence in this election down is the utter vitrol, vindictiveness and hatred people around had for Obama, issues be damned.

"YOU will be blamed for McCain's Presidency" "YOU will be blamed for Roe v. Wade being overturned" "YOU will be blamed for more wars and dead soldiers" "YOU made me vote for McCain"

My brother tried to keep my spirits up, but then he went to campaign for Obama and that didn't go so well.


[ Parent ]
Which state(s) are they in? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
New York (0.00 / 0)
luckilly enough  

[ Parent ]
What happened for your bro while campaigning? n/t (0.00 / 0)


"The 'Gay Agenda' has indeed been revealed, and it bears a remarkable resemblance to the U.S. Constitution." ~Donna Minnis

[ Parent ]
He works for Obama's campaign (4.00 / 1)
in Virginia and went on canvassing in neighborhoods that went strongly for Clinton in the primary. Most supporters were supportive...but I few really treated my brother horribly. One woman spit in his face, another slammed the door on him. One woman actually made him get on his knees and grovel at her feet and say Obama wasn't qualified to wipe Bill and Hillary's asses. Another woman told she was voting for McCain so "you Hillary-hating brats will get sent off to Iraq"

He called me upset and almost quit and I (ME!) talked him into saying...me! lol. The weeks before the convention were not good down on the campaign he said. A lot of people began to feel Obama was going to lose. The convention renewed their spirits, but now he's worried about Palin.


[ Parent ]
Sounds like your mom comments at TalkLeft (0.00 / 0)


John McCain won't insure children

[ Parent ]
how about listening with some empathy (4.00 / 3)
If you are throwing arguments at them and saying you can't even discuss facts with them because they get too emotional, you are probably making things worse.

Probably it's best for you not to bring this up with them anymore. But if it comes up, try listening and then reflecting back to them what you hear them trying to tell you.

I doubt many angry Clinton supporters are going to vote for McCain because he picked a woman, especially once they learn more about Palin. But if you back them into a corner by arguing with them and complaining about their "emotional" reaction to the situation, you will only slow down the process of their coming around.

I wrote a diary about how to talk to non-supporters about Obama. Maybe you will find some ideas in there:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.


[ Parent ]
empathy? (0.00 / 0)
really? Some of these people don't want you to listen with empathy, they want to start a fight, scream at you, demean you and make you feel like shit. That's their goal. Anyone who wanted you to listen in empathy has said their peace and moved on. Now, it's just those who want to punish you for not giving Hillary was she is owed.

When you have experiences like my brother, you don't listen in empathy, you ignore them and move on.  


[ Parent ]
This attitude (0.00 / 0)
is exactly why so many Clinton supporters remain angry and disaffected.

It is the kind of arrogant attitude ("what she was owed") that completely disrespects and dishonors the long public service of Hillary Clinton. And many, many Obama supporters here and across the blogosphere seemed to get delicious satisfaction every time they opened their mouths to trash her. It shows a lot of us (second wave feminists) that you seem not to give a crap about women's rights, women's point of view (unless it falls into line with preconceived notions and talking points about women's rights, feminism), or anybody over 30.

Maybe this isn't true about you, but it establishes that kind of image. It reflects a one-up belief - an attitude of "I'm better/smarter/more knowledgeable/better educated than you so I have a right to diss anybody who doesn't share these characteristics."


[ Parent ]
mabelle (0.00 / 0)
some of these people will tell you outright that she was "owed" the presidency. I've been told outright by some people that the party should be punished because Hillary was owed the presidency and they took away what was rightfully hers and now we need to be punished. I even had people tell me, a New York, that the Presidency was the only reason why she ran for the Senate.

Explain why it's ok for some of these women to spit in my brother's face or ask him to grovel at their feet or tell us they're voting for McCain so we can "get our heads blown off in Iraq and teach us a lesson" when all he did was reach out. All they saw was a young college-age kid supporting Obama and immediately cast him as some arrogant prick looking to beat on Hillary, before he even opened his mouth. I know my brother, he's not that...yet they wouldn't listen to anything he had to say, they just insulted him, demeaned him and upset him.

Look I know plenty of Clinton suppoters who wanted us to listen to why they were upset and we did and so did Obama and together we've moved on, but I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about those who feel Hillary was shafted by the voters and now those voters need to be punished.  


[ Parent ]
I didn't say everybody! (0.00 / 0)
And I completely agree that there are people who have the "owed to her" attitude and the expression of that was frequently embarrassing to me.

For the record, though, as a second wave feminist who worked my butt off to see women and minorities get to the place that they have even been taken seriously as POTUS candidates and then to hear young women and men across the blogsophere completely disrespect that just blew me away and frankly has left me pretty depressed and pretty cynical.

I didn't spend 20-plus years in the trenches, working my heart out to improve my life, the lives of my sisters, and the lives of African Americans and other minorities, to be told that Hillary Clinton didn't earn the right to be a POTUS candidate, and to dismiss and disrespect her as some crony good ole boy in a pansuit (I'm paraphrasing here, but I gather you get the gist).

It seemed that all of a sudden the goal of equality for women meant nothing as women/feminists watched, yet again, a young man get the kudos and rewards for the work that women of my generation and many other previous generations helped make possible. And then, that wasn't enough: all of a sudden, feminism was no longer necessary and no longer "relevant" (the term I frequently saw and heard during the primaries).

If, IF women like me hadn't felt totally drowned out by angry/hostile/cruel voices of people half our age, who have benefitted from everything we did in the 60s and the 70s and even the 80s and 90s, and very much disrespected and dismissed for our age/feminism/HRC support, perhaps the pain would have been far less and we wouldn't even have to be concerned about how many disaffected HRC voters are gonna be peeled-off by McCain/Palin.

There were very few voices of reason in the blogosphere for HRC supporters to turn to. And while OpenLeft stayed largely positive, even finding a handful of dismissive, disrespectful comments about women/HRC on this site frequently served as painful reminders about how far women have to go, how hard we have to work, how much we have to outshine men half our age (and experience), in order to achieve the same goals.

So, I DO understand that there are women (and men) out there throwing it in your face and saying they're going to vote for McCain (out of spite). I DO! And some of these folks will never be happy, ever. Their "movement" has taken on a life of its own that isn't about Hillary Clinton. I agree with you, but I also understand the wrenching agony so many of these women feel -- like having your dream torn up into little pieces and flushed down the toilet because it wasn't "good enough".  


[ Parent ]
But you are basically saying (0.00 / 0)
that Hillary Clinton needed to be treated specially because she was a woman and because you worked so hard to advance woman's causes, we need to overlook whatever quams we had about voting for her. You're basically telling me that it is an afront to you to say she's not the best choice for President this year because you've spent too many years working for woman's rights.

She wanted to be treated equally, and she was judged by me as she would any man and in my eyes, no, she was not who I believed this country needed right now, regardless of her gender and Obama was, regardless of his race. I don't vote identity politics and if I don't believe a woman is the right person for the job, I will not vote for her...same with African-Americans. I heard this same crap from Democrats who tried to convince me to vote for Carl McCall in 2002 because "don't you want to see a black governor?" You bet I do, but I don't believe McCall was the man...and you know what? Six years later, my state has a black governor who is much better than McCall IMO. I want to see a woman President, but I don't believe Hillary was the best choice. No, she wasn't good enough for me this year and it had NOTHING to do with her gender, it had to do with how I judged her campaign and her stances on issues. Basically I'm getting it thrown in my face because I didn't vote for a candidate I didn't think was the best choice just to satisfy some people's lifelong dreams.

Just because a woman ran does not automatically mean she should win because some people waited forever for a woman president. Am I wrong?  


[ Parent ]
Basically (0.00 / 0)
what I'm trying to say is

Is that you or they think a male who had run Hillary's campaign would've won? Because I can honestly say, and swear it on my grandfather's grave, that had someone like Bill Clinton or John Edwards or Joe Biden run the same campaign Hillary did the same exact way, I still would've voted for Barack Obama.  


[ Parent ]
My wife (0.00 / 0)
who really doesn't pay much attention to politics at all (I'm pretty sure she let me talk her into voting for Obama in the primaries) said the exact same thing as your sister.

CT Local Politics: Our Primaries are Better than Yours!

Yeah, McCain will really bring in the women vote. . . (4.00 / 1)
Because if women appreciate anything, its when an older man picks an attractive, inexperienced woman over her more established counterparts.

Yowza. (0.00 / 0)


Montani semper liberi

[ Parent ]
concern trolling (0.00 / 0)
McCain should've picked Lieberman; taking on the base would win him many more votes in the middle than this stunt.

Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search