I started reading the column with apprehension, convinced that Rich was going to buy into the narrative that angry white women who had supported Clinton are now turning to McCain in droves. Instead, we get this:
Now, there’s no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.
The fictional scenario of mobs of crazed women defecting to Mr. McCain is just one subplot of the master narrative that has consumed our politics for months. The larger plot has it that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided, and that only a ticket containing Mrs. Clinton in either slot could retain the loyalty of white male bowlers and other constituencies who tended to prefer her to Mr. Obama in the primaries.
This is reality turned upside down. It’s the Democrats who are largely united and the Republicans who are at one another’s throats.
Women are supporting Obama in huge numbers — they support Obama over McCain by 13-19 points. It’s only white suburban women — a small slice of the female population — who are leaning toward McCain (and only by 6 points). But that’s what the news media is focused on, despite the fact that Obama has a 7-point lead among white women, and a lead twice that when you count all women
“NBC Nightly News” was so focused on these supposedly devastating Obama shortfalls that there was no mention that the Democrat beat Mr. McCain (and outperformed Mr. Kerry) in every other group that had been in doubt: independents, Catholics, blue-collar workers and Hispanics. Indeed, the evidence that pro-Clinton Hispanics are flocking to Mr. McCain is as nonexistent as the evidence of a female stampede. Mr. Obama swamps Mr. McCain by 62 percent to 28 percent — a disastrous G.O.P. setback, given that President Bush took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, according to exit polls. No wonder the McCain campaign no longer lists its candidate’s home state of Arizona as safe this fall.
But of course, the more interesting story is that white women are pissed off, and are responding, as women do, totally irrationally and hysterically — by supporting a misogynist, anti-choice, regressive, conservative candidate. It’s an easy media myth because if you consider suburban white women to be the only women that matter, you can bolster your claim with statistics. And when you’re looking for an easy villain, angry unreasonable women are pretty high on the list. I have yet to meet a Clinton supporter who is voting for McCain — I have met a (very) few Clinton supporters who dislike Obama or are going to vote third-party or stay home on election day — but the huge numbers of women flocking to McCain are a media-made myth. As Rich says,
The ludicrous idea that votes from Clinton supporters would somehow make up for McCain defectors is merely the latest fairy tale brought to you by those same Washington soothsayers who said Fred Thompson was the man to beat and that young people don’t turn up to vote.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 70 comments }
I can’t tell if hillaryis44.com helps drive that sense, or its popularity is only because people keep pointing at it to prove their own misconceptions about Clinton’s constituency.
Answer: HillaryIs44.com’s popularity is only because people keep pointing at it to prove their own misconceptions about Clinton’s constituency.
Is part of the problem that this small part of the female population – and their male counterparts – are usually the focus of media and culture in general?
This seems kind of symptomatic of something to me, rather than a new phenomenon.
Yes! Am aggressive head shake of agreement was warranted on this post. The media has gone apeshit with this idea of white feminists turning to McCain, even though Obama matches their set of ideas more closely. Great blog! I too, have a feminist blog. check ot out? http://shesontherag.blogspot.com
Same here. I only ever encounter these folks on the internet, and even those encounters have been relatively few and far between. Still, I can’t help wonder what the reasoning is behind their about-face. I keep hearing how I’m “missing the point”, but those kinds of comments are never accompanied by a explanation of what the “point” is supposed to be.
Anyway, good job putting this in its proper perspective.
But of course, the more interesting story is that white women are pissed off, and are responding, as women do, totally irrationally and hysterically — by supporting a misogynist, anti-choice, regressive, conservative candidate
i agree that angry democratic white women voting mccain is an exaggeration, no matter what larry johnson says, but you must admit there was a bizarre reactions to obama from some very prominent white liberal democratic women.
i was gobsmacked at gloria Steinem’s first oppression olympics op-ed in the nytimes (i mean, doesn’t she read feministe) but little did i realize that was the least of it. gerry ferraro bizarro world of black privilege took the cake of course, but that was probably just politics…ie a coordinated effor to label obama a race-card playing jesse jackson type.
but erica jong started referring to obama as “boy“. nina burleigh wanted to know his position on rap and OJ Simpson and even a former feministe blogger (not zuzu) wondered if obama beat hs wife and asked her readers if he reminded them of OJ, among other transgressions.
now that lady who called obama an “inadequate black male” became the poster girl for angy white women, but she was just a nobody. however, did joan walsh have to refer to her outburst as a “wail worth hearing” while recomending that obama sit down with ferraro for advice on how to win? wtf?
in what bizarre world can you hear dogwhisles when a man wipes his shoulder and in the same breath say what those feminists said. stereotype sure, but irrational indeed.
Of course, all of this was true from January right on though June as well, that Democrats were excited and talking about policy and generally supportive of each other, and Republicans were furious at each other. Funny that he’s willing to step in and debunk the myths about the little ladies now that the primaries are over.
I have two friends who are both going to sit this one out because Clinton did not get the nomination, because of all the sexism and such.
And I don’t get that. I get feeling bad because the candidate you believed in hard didn’t wind up with the nomination….hell, I was an Edwards girl. But I really dislike the notion that just because there’s a woman running I have to vote for her, since I’m a woman. I thought feminism was about getting a level shot at the same goals men have had, myself, and I did not vote for Clinton because I didn’t like her voting pattern in Congress, I didn’t like her backers, and I didn’t like that she was involved with The Family….not because I think men are the only ones who can be president, or similar bullshit.
So I’ve been biting my tongue a lot lately.
It’s hard to blame the media when I read so many people in blogland saying they’re going to support McCain because Hillary didn’t win. I agree it’s nonsense or a tiny deranged minority, but it’s not exactly something the media invented.
That’s the thing though – A lot of us don’t feel like she got a level shot. The media and the DNC were shoving her out even as she was still winning primaries. And superdelegates like Richardson, Kerry, and Kennedy were going against the will of their own constituents by signing on with the candidate who’d lost their own states’ primaries. And you have MI and FL and Obama supporters bullying women at caucuses and at Clinton rallies and … do you really want to get all this fired up again?
The places I see this are on CNN and on blogs like Shakesville. THe Shakes crowd may not be the ones the media are talking about, but they sure are a pretty vocal group there.
Not too many voting for McCain that I have seen, but plenty acting like Obama is personally responsible for all the sexism in the world and refusing to vote for him.
It does concern me that these people seem to be for real and I wonder how many of them there actually are.
I have met some former Clinton supporters who hate Obama so much for racist and other reasons that they are planning to vote for McCain.
This, however, is not limited only to White women as the MSM likes to portray…but seems to be more common among the minority of the boomer generation who tend to be White and extremely narcissistic about their generation’s greatness and are infuriated us young’uns are not willing to automatically defer to their greatness by voting for a candidate they consider too “uppity” and imbued with “youthful entitlement”. In addition to racist dogwhistles others have pointed out on here and other anti-racist blogs, this also has an ageist element as it plays into the idea that us young’uns should just sit down, shut up, and unquestioningly obey whatever dictates are set before us by boomer or older aged folks.
Reminds me to some extent of Zuzu’s old post about the tendency of some in the boomer generation to promote their generation’s greatness at the expense of younger generations.
I can imagine that it’s being overblown by the media, but since the first I heard about it was a woman calling into a local public radio show and saying she was going to vote for McCain because Clinton didn’t win the nomination, at least one exists. Quite possibly more than the one I heard.
This article reminds me of my reaction to Clinton’s “I win these constituencies/states, which we need in November” argument in the Spring: the primary measured which of the two candidates people preferred, not whether anyone was willing to vote for the other candidate. That many voters in the primaries/caucuses preferred Clinton to Obama has NEVER been a meaningful measure of who was willing to support Obama. Even the exit polls are meaningless answers given in the middle of the toughest primary in recent memory are no indication of what people will do in the cold light of day on Tuesday, November 4th.
Has anyone actually seen data that differentiates “Clinton supporter” from “Democrat”? Or “Clinton supporter” from “person who actually voted Clinton in the primaries”, which is a subset of all Clinton supporters?
I haven’t, and I think it’s important. Here’s why. White suburban people of both sexes often lean Republican anyway. One plausible explanation for the apparent shift in white women’s support to McCain is that these women were never serious Democrats to begin with. Perhaps they were security moms who helped elect Bush in 04, or perhaps they were independents who registered to vote in the Democratic primary because they were excited by the prospect of a woman president. This isn’t an outlandish though; after all, we know that turnout this primary season was sky high and a lot of the votes, for both candidates, were from first-time voters and first-time Democrats.
If, therefore, we think of support for Clinton amongst these women as an aberration from their default support for hawkish Republicans, then McCain’s lead amongst this group isn’t a function of a female progressive exodus but simply the return to normality after a trend-bucking candidate, i.e. Clinton, is removed from the race.
Now, obviously I’m not saying all white suburban women fit the above description, but if even 10% do, then this theory comfortably explains McCain’s lead with this demographic.
Also, I think it’s important that Jill says she knows NO ONE who voted for Clinton who now says she’ll vote for McCain. Neither do I. I have “heard” people on the internet say they will sit it out, or vote Green, but in a lot of states that’s not likely to have a serious impact anyway.
We live in a culture where political tactics are still learning to take advantage of new media. We DO NOT KNOW that a woman who calls into a radio show really was ever a Clinton supporter. We don’t know who she voted for in the last 4 elections.
Now, if you have a friend (someone you actually know) who’s a long time Democrat who was supporting Clinton and now says she will vote for McCain – that I’d be interested to hear about. Until then I’m highly suspicious.
And, of the group that say they’ll sit out or vote Green, if states that are expected to be a lock are suddenly in play – they might change their minds.
sorry for the long comment, this has been on my mind. I have been meaning to write a post.
I never seriously questioned that a good chunk of most Clinton supporters would vote for Obama. However isn’t there a danger of the group above having a “Ralph Nader 2000″ affect in November? I am not particularly concerned about this, but I think it is worth considering. But also I think this article correctly points out, these numbers need to be put into perspective.
Also, I second Manju. There have been odd reactions from white, democratic liberal feminists in all areas–on the net, in the political sphere and our personal lives. I have been thinking about this ever since I got into an ugly cyber fight over at Shakesville which has left me pretty disgusted. There is a persuasive, palatable taste of hurt and anger among white women (obviously not all) that is often difficult to understand.
For me the racial divide crystallized when I saw the demographics of the HRC supporter protest outside the DNC Rules and Committee Bylaws. There was a good number of black women who were Clinton supporters, but what they were saying was markedly different than the “inadequate black male” lady or the many others who declared they would vote for McCain. The black women, in contrast, said no to voting for McCain and most importantly… did not have a sense of outrage against Obama for the delegate politics.
On the one hand, yes, it’s pretty sucky to have your candidate not win, especially one as historical as Clinton’s campaign has been. But on the other hand, her legislative fights live on with Obama. And she herself will undoubtably play a major role in an Obama cabinet (in a way she obviously would not in a McCain one). Also, I am far less pessimistic about seeing another female presidential candidate. I think no matter how ardently one dislikes Clinton, it is difficult to disagree that the next time a woman runs for president, “it will be unremarkable”. And I genuinely believe the nation will have a much lower tolerance for many of the sexist antics of our media machine the next time around.
Another point that rankles me endlessly is this notion among many Clinton supporters that people of color (and women of color) voted for Obama “without fully knowing him”. I find this deeply insulting. To me it reads, “you don’t know what you are doing, oh colored people, and thanks for screwing it up for the rest of us”. From my personal life, I, for one, am pretty tired of white feminists telling me bad “people from your culture” are at gender equality and the “what we should be doing” with our lives to change this.
Anyway, good post.
I think this is a really good point.
i doubt they’ll add up to much at the end of the day, but clinton fanatics are out there. you got the foundr of PUMA supporting mccain, one deligate has reversed, a new “just say no” to obama website’s getting play on fox, a coupkle of TN democrats worry about obama terrorist connections, and ferraro has hinted at not voting for him.
but i don’t think anyone listens to these bozos.
There’s an article at Momocrats where one blogger met a group of Clinton supporters and was given the cold shoulder for supporting Obama. Though they did not say they were voting McCain, or anyone for that matter. And this group was a small minorty at a Democratic convention. http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/06/is-healing-the.html
The McCain Web site could have hired John Aravosis if all they wanted was someone to call HRC names.
JA has hypocritically posted about this as if he hasn’t been being truly awful about her himself.
Dear Frank Rich,
Speaking as an “angry” Clinton supporter, I’m not voting for McCain. I’m voting third party.
My husband, however, is a lifelong Democrat. He’s voting for McCain. Maybe you should write an editorial about men like him instead.
It does concern me that these people seem to be for real and I wonder how many of them there actually are.
Oh, we’re very much “for real.” But no, we don’t think Obama is personally responsible for all the sexism in the world. He’s only responsible for his little slice of it.
Gayle, did you read Rich’s column?
The other part of the story that gets no play is that the sample size of “suburban white women” was 100, that makes the margin of error larger than the difference between Obama and McCain for this subset. Media Matters covers it
The whole story is premature. But then the mostly male pundits seem to have problems with premature judgment and probably other premature actions. I think the moral here is “don’t go off half cocked”
Dear Gayle,
No one said you didn’t exist. Frank Rich simply said the Dems are “largely united” and there aren’t “mobs” of Clinton supporters fleeing the party this fall.
Best Regards,
cy
Rich makes an excellent point by deconstructing the sexist assumptions at the base of the “angry white women” trope. Although I am sure there are nutcases who are voting for McCain now that Hilary is out of the race I am certain they do not represent the bulk of Clinton supporters. But posts like the one above by “Gayle” illustrate the true danger represented by disaffected Clinton supporters of either sex: the “I’m voting third party” fantasy…or the outright “I’m sitting this one out.”
Of course it is the prerogative of Gayle (and her “lifelong Democrat” husband) to vote for whomever they chose–but they and other Clinton supporters should not kid themselves: A third party vote or no vote at all is a vote for McCain. If even half of Hilary’s supporters do this then they will usher another Republican right into office. Wielding the threat of voting “against” Obama as a matter of principle(!) is a frighteningly privileged exercise that illustrates all of the worst qualities usually ascribed to the failed Clinton campaign.
In a historical moment when we are one Supreme Court Justice away from overturning Roe v Wade and one bad decision away from a war with Iran true Democrats must learn to take the long view. Posturing online as a way to vent post-candidacy let down is one thing, Working to actively (or passive aggressively) undermine the candidacy of the most viable Democratic candidate we have had in ten years is foolish and ultimately self-destructive.
Gayle, her husband and millions of other Clinton supporters must begin to ask themselves “what do I really want?” It is my profound hope that sense prevails.
If these Hillary supporters exist (those now voting for McCain) they really need an old fashioned shoulder shake. I could not get my head around the following article from The Stump (Re “the” Larry Sinclair at the DNC rally) here is an excerpt-
“They almost made me cry this morning when they told me to get out of there,” the blond Sinclair–who’s looking roly-poly and giddy in a blue-and-white striped shirt with a pack of Marlboros protruding from the breast pocket–says, referring to several nervous protest organizers who tried to evict him when he first showed up at the rally site early this morning carrying a box of “Obama’s DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS: Murder, Drugs, Gay Sex” fliers. Since then, though, he goes on, “I have been totally surprised by the reception I have received!”
He’s not kidding. Clusters of people in Hillary shirts ask to take their photo with him, one woman covered in Clinton buttons introduces him to Greta Van Susteren, and he estimates he has handed out 500 fliers. “You could improve your credibility if you downplayed the gay sex and focused on the drugs,” sagely advises one Hillary supporter with auburn hair and elegant makeup. But in this universe, Sinclair’s credibility doesn’t seem to be suffering too much. In fact, he’s treated nearly as well as he might be at a meeting of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy. In the thirty minutes I stand with him, only one woman expresses disgust at his fliers and his willingness to chattily discourse on whether Obama is “good in bed.”
HUH? Really? As uncomfortable as is it may be to admit it, it seems these people really do exist.
I am a Clinton supporter who will not be voting for Obama in November unless my state is in play. If it is in play I will very reluctanly mark my ballot for him. I live in a red state and have that luxury, if my state goes blue it will be a democratic blow out of monumental proportions and I doubt that will happen. I will either write Clinton in or leave the pres spot blank and will vote for the democrats down ticket. The first democratic presidential candidate I voted for was Jimmy Carter and I have been a democrat longer than some here have been alive, probably.
I chose Clinton over Obama mainly because of experience. I see nothing in his background that makes me think he is ready for the presidency. I was very hopeful that we would see a Clinton/Obama ticket, I felt that 8 years of VP would give him the experience he needs and would give us 16 years of democrats in the white house, giving us a chance to undo the damage done by 8 years of Bush.
I am so saddened and angered by the treatment our first serious woman candidate recieved. Yes, I am old to some of those here, I’m a second wave feminist who rejoiced at the possibility of a female president in my lifetime. If anyone had told me 30 years ago that a woman presidential candidate would be called a ball breaking bitch who cackled and cried, that people would think a Hillary Clinton nut cracker was a funny gag gift, that she would be called a pimp and her daughter a whore, I would not have believed it.
I hold Obama responsible for not speaking out against her treatment. He could have made it clear that he did not want to be the beneficiary of the sexism directed at her but he did not, not directly and not through surrogates.
I assure you that I exist, that I am a democrat, and that I won’t be voting for Obama. In my state, where Clinton won an overwhelming victory over Obama in the primary, I know many like me.
Gayle, did you read Rich’s column?
Twice now. And I think it’s folly to dismiss all white male democrats as some sort of dying demographic. My husband didn’t vote for G. W. Bush or G. H. Walker Bush. He’s voted Democratic his entire life.
Now he’s breaking with the Democratic party.
I think it’s equally wrongheaded to ignore disaffected female Democratic voters or to suggest we don’t exist. Finally. his dismissive references to “bowlers” and elderly voters are utterly offensive.
“No one said you didn’t exist. Frank Rich simply said the Dems are “largely united” and there aren’t “mobs” of Clinton supporters fleeing the party this fall.”
Hello, Cy.
Admittedly, if Rich’s article was one of a kind, I probably wouldn’t be so annoyed by it. There have been a number of articles these last weeks about “angry” female Clinton supporters. Why no articles about angry male Clinton supporters?
I find the framing itself specious. Yes, I know, Rich says females are leaning towards Obama and therefore he’s attacking the frame. But why are females being singled out? Especially when the most adamant protest voters out there are men? That’s worth examining, IMO.
But neither did Clinton speak out against the racism that came from her campaign. In fact she, herself made racially tinted statements. It is arguable, at best, that Obama benefited from the sexism against Clinton. There is no evidence for this at all. But it is proven and a fact, that Clinton did benefit from racism against Obama. In every state where race was a factor, Clinton won hands down. In fact, in states like W.Virginia and Kentucky, nearly 20% of Clinton voters would not be happy with her president. The only reason they voted for her was so the Muslim terrorist wouldn’t win. How do you ignore these indisputable facts? I just don’t get that.
It seems fairly obvious. Clinton’s supporters are overwhelmingly female. Also because of the undercurrent of feminism that runs through the rhetoric that voters use to support Clinton.
Gayle:
You can’t consider the male and non-white Clinton supporters who are switching to McCain or third-party, because then you’d have to allow that “Clinton supporters,” aka “women,” is something larger and more diverse than a white, hive-minded niche bent on spoiling the election.
That would just complicate things.
I am an angry white gay male. I’m not sure where that puts me in the demographics pool. I am also one of 18 million poeple that made Hillary Clinton the popular vote winner, and the winner of states that totaled 312 electoral votes. All of that appears to be lost because the super/stupid delegates were to busy tripping over each other to climb onto the Obama lemming-bandwagon.
Once the dust settles and the summers ends, the real game begins and folks will re-examine their candidate and should compare resumes. The Obama resume is thin enough to you can see light when held next to a lamp. All the excitement of the new and change and unite the country will most likely fade in the chill of Autum. A shaky economy, 2 wars abroad, zero cred in most of the worlds eyes. People like to talk about change but want comfort and sameness. They want a steady-seasoned hand to lead them. Just like in 1988, by the time both the conventions end McCain will be ahead by 10 points, and not looking back.
I have yet to decide whom to vote for. Also, check out…Just say no deal.com.
It will be an eye opener
In 2004, 55 percent of white women voted for George W Bush. That was after the first four years of his disastrous presidency. So, yes, I suspect that most of the “angry white women” did not vote for the Democrat in the last election anyway.
Interestingly, Gail, your husband is actually a living demonstration of why it’s a bad strategy to “punish” your party by voting for the other guys.
Men have been voting for Republicans in droves for a couple of decades now. I think in 2004, something like 65 percent of white men voted for George W Bush. So, frankly, your husband’s vote is going to send no message to the Democrats whatsoever, except that white men are continuing to become more conservative and more Republican as the years go on, so there’s no point in trying to court them.
Any “protest” that he thinks he’s making will be chalked up to the larger demographic shift that’s been in operation since at least Reagan, and he’s actually lessening the chances that the Democrats will try to win the white male vote this year or in the next election.
Here’s the link to the CNN poll: the numbers were 55 percent of white women and 62 percent of white men who voted for Bush. In the 2000 election, 60 percent of white men and 48 percent of white women voted for Bush, and that was despite Bush losing the popular vote.
Democrats might be able to win back white women, but white men are pretty much a lost cause, at least for another generation.
What fuzz said. A lot of “angry” Hillary supporters threatening to vote for McCain probably weren’t democrats to begin with, they were probably female Republicans/Independents excited about a woman. I’m sure that a smaller proportion, like Cy (and her husband) are Democrats that dislike Obama. My guess is in any election, a small group of Dems choose not to vote for the nominee because they don’t like him/her. This election it might be higher, but maybe not. I knew some young people who didn’t vote in 04 because they couldn’t be bothered to pull the lever for Kerry. My guess is the demographics of disgruntled voters change, but the rough percentages don’t.
Because the blogosphere tends to be a bit of an echo chamber, the more extreme, angry views tend to be overrepresented, and I think it’s easy to let a handful of vocal fanatics color our view of a candidate’s supporters.
Finally, as people have pointed out, Republicans tend to vote in lockstep, even if they don’t agree, and it’s really helped them win elections, as Republicans have controlled the presidency for 20 of the past 28 years. Part of me thinks that if Democrats were as disciplined, we’d be more successful. But a bigger part of me thinks that if we could swallow our views and pull the lever for whoever our pastor or husband or the lefty version of Rush Limbaugh etc. says to vote for, we wouldn’t be Democrats. Part of the Democratic party is about creating a coalition of various liberal and progressive movements. It’s messy, cantankerous, often at odds with each other and sometimes incredibly ineffectual. However, that’s what democracy is about. If we want the trains to run on time, we’ll need Mussolini. If we want social justice, we’ll need to take a breath and recognize that telling people to vote in lockstep is counterproductive.
I completely agree with Fuzz. And that’s why I’m really sick and tired of being told, on feminist and/or progressive websites, that I’d be stupid to vote for McCain. You don’t say!
It’s not Hillary’s liberal, feminist Democrat supporters who are going to be voting McCain in November. It’s most likely Independents and folks who typically vote Republican – conservatives who liked Hillary for whatever reason.
All those who are trying to convince die-hard lefty women that McCain is a bad choice are preaching to the choir.
Also, as a Clinton supporter, I felt angry and upset; I understand those feelings. But I can already feel them abating. I know I’ll be excited to vote for Obama by the time November rolls around. I think it’s ridiculous to think that most Clinton supporters won’t feel the same.
John Dickerson has an article in Slate about the actual numbers involved.
I’ve heard some Clinton-supporting feminists planning to vote for McCain but it’s few of them. Others plan to sit it out and others have apparently discovered that Clinton’s not the only woman in the race and have chosen to give Cynthia McKinney their “protest” vote. Which is ironic considering her positions on issues that impact women (not just limited to “women issues”) is better than Clinton’s.
But I’ve heard more White Republican women (and some men) saying that they’re either sitting out or voting for Obama because they can’t stand McCain.
Here’s another story (from the LA Times) showing what a bullshit meme this is. Polls show that — surprise, surprise — most women who voted for Hillary are planning to vote for Obama.
You are going to have a few high-profile racists going to McCain (hope no one here was taking Hillaryis44.com seriously), but it’s not going to be nearly enough to save McCain’s butt in November.
Excuse me, BUT THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA IS THE ONE TO BLAME FOR SEXISM, NOT OBAMA, BILL CLINTON, OR MARK PENN.
There may not be enough Hillary-turned-McCain supporters to tip the election, but that doesn’t make it less interesting as a talking point, in my opinion. Even if there were only ten in the entire country, I would be curious to know their reasoning.
Another thing I find equally curious is the hostility directed at anyone who mentions the topic, even in passing. The implication seems to be that anyone who finds it interesting or worthy of discussion has been duped into believing the biggest piece of propaganda in the history of the United States, and that there is no value in discussing things in the abstract.
Something I find more amusing than curious, though, is when feminists say or imply that these voters don’t deserve the time of day because, after all, they’re only a minority. I’d call that irony at it’s finest.
One question I’d like to ask the alleged Hillary supporters (David Stewart included) who are now vowing to vote for McCain: Leaving any mention of Barack Obama aside, what affirmative reason do you have to vote for McCain? What’s good and positive about his campaign platform?
One question I’d like to ask the alleged Hillary supporters (David Stewart included) who are now vowing to vote for McCain: Leaving any mention of Barack Obama aside, what affirmative reason do you have to vote for McCain? What’s good and positive about his campaign platform?
What what they are telling me, its a strategic vote. To punish the Democratic party for not giving them what they wanted. It has got nothing to do with McCain’s position.
I just have to add that I am one of the ‘great generationers’ that so many are very mistakenly saying are voting for McCain. Well, I know many of my age group who are thrilled with Obama’s candidacy, and I am also very pleased to see our young people show the enthusiasm and wisdom to know that things will change when WE ALL make it change. I am supporting Obama and many of my retired friends are as well. Love to see the younger generation’s excitement and ability to see through all of the horror of the way things are at present, and will continue to be with yet another republican in office.
Actually, I suspect that is not all though that may not be true for people I know. From some of the websites Manju has posted for many it has to do with his being black and/or suspected Muslim.
Dianne, if I imagined what a right-wing plant trying to sow division on a progressive blog might write, I’d probably come pretty close to your comments in various threads here. Just sayin’.
I love this bit from Ta-Nehisi.. Full post here
Exactly.
I’ve got a few people in my circle of friends who have vowed to sit this one out. Four words: nose, cut, face, spite. It makes me crazed to see self-proclaimed progressives spout how they intend to cast their votes for an anti-choice, anti-gay, pro-war, cut-tax-and-spend-anyway right winger because the Democratic candidate, whose views are almost identical to those held by their own favorite, isn’t the candidate they wanted. This is the political equivalent of holding one’s breath until one turns blue because one didn’t get one’s way. If you’re going to vote for McCain, be damned sure you agree with his policies because you’re going to be living with them for the next twenty to thirty years thanks to the Supreme Court nominees he’ll pick. And if you’re not going to vote to Obama, make sure you can explain what policies of his you couldn’t stand to make yourself vote for when everything you said you wanted is completely off the table for the rest of your natural lifespan.
I want to have a female President during my life. I’d like to have one soon, actually. But I’m willing to wait another four to eight years if it means I don’t lose Roe or see my family torn apart by a draft to fight another endless war. Had Clinton won the nomination, I’d vote for her, just like I voted for Kerry in ‘04 and Gore in ‘00 and Bill Clinton twice before that. I’ve seen the greater evil in action, and if you can’t swallow your pride and throw your lt in with anything else to stop it, that says a lot more about your priorities than it does about Obama.
– a suburban white mom
One of the things that should cause us to be sceptical about the “feminists for McCain” movement is the content of the websites it lives on.
Suffice it to say, the words Muslim//Marxist/radical/terrorist/unpatriotic/black/ etc turn up more often than pills in Rush Limbaugh’s luggage.
Hardly what one would expect from serious, progressive, feminist Democrats, is it?
I was pleased to read this, as well as the Frank Rich article. It helps me believe that Dems have not completely lost their minds and have a clue how politics really works.
Let me just say that some of the commenters on Shakesville have completely lost their minds. The bile, hatred and viciousness towards ANYONE who DARES to suggest that 1. Obama has good things to offer women and/or 2. HRC might have made a few mistakes is truly hideous and completely over the top. Many claim with relish to be voting for McCain (he of anti-choice and calling-wife-Cword fame) just so “the Obamabots will be deprived of their Jesus.” Craziness.
(This does not seem to be coming from Melissa, but she certainly defends it and encourages her illiterate, crazed and vicious posters to vent freely.)
It’s a toxic cesspool over there right now. Highly recommend staying away for all rational and sane folks.
Ok, I’m not sure why every thread on the elections turns into Shakesville-bashing, but I’m going to cut it off (again). If you don’t like what goes on at Shakesville, that’s your business, but it’s irrelevant here. Thanks.
white male. Supported in this order: Kuc, Edwards, then Obama.
I have one thing to say to those who “sit this one out”. If you think that it will be any easier to advance the rights of all non-white, non-male, non-rich folks after 4 (or maybe 8) more years of Republican party policies and court appointments, you might think again about what the LAST 8 years have wrought. There are lots of other ways to send a message to the DNC than sabotaging the election. Look your daughter in the eye and see if you can explain how helping to elect a fear-mongering, hypocrtical, regressive candidate like McCain will help make it a better world for her. Having trouble?
Ah, the Ones Who Explain. it’s like a daily parade anymore. Tell me more about the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade. Explain to me like I’m twelve years old how voting works. Because none of this ever occurred to me and it’s not as if a string of self-important dudebro Obamaniacs regurgitate it on every feminist blog every damn day. You’re each a special special snowflake. It really drives you guys crazy that you can’t control the decision-making process and actions of every woman in the world, doesn’t it. ha ha!
I read Shakes practically every day, and I haven’t seen any more pro-McCain comments or posts over there then I normally do here. Matter of fact, general consensus at Shakes is that McCain is a crazy asshole. Seems you’re all talking out your tailpipes there, not that that’s at all unusual or surprising.
ROFL! Where did you even come from?
Hey, wiggles! I stand in absolute awe of your unrivaled brilliance.
I was wondering, though… Do you ever contribute anything besides arrogant condescension to the discussions here? Or is your genius strictly limited to pointing and laughing and telling other people how stupid they are in an effort to feel superior? Just wondering…
I am now prepared to be properly humiliated, belittled and put back in place. Who the hell do I think I am anyway?
Yes… wiggles is a horrible person for being “arrogantly condescending” to people who are condescending towards her. Who the hell does she think she is anyway?
All I’ve seen from Obama people who are yelling at Clinton supporters is threats about what catastrophes will befall us all with McCain in the White House.
EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. We’re talking about a man who at 61 thought it fit to make fun of an 18 year old’s appearance. I usually ignore smears of this sort, but this is a little different from Rev. Wright or Vince Foster. This man is a bully. Electing him means electing a bully to manage an already delicate situation.
I like Obama, and I’m not American, and the threats are pissing ME off. You don’t get to hold someone hostage by invoking Roe over and over, when we don’t really know if the Democratic Party will enthusiastically fight for women’s issues, or continue half-heartedly defending Roe, letting it get whittled away until it’s an empty shell.
Right now, it’s June. If Obama and the Democrats make an effort to reach out to reluctant Clinton supporters, to show them that women’s issues and health care and everything else Hillary stood for will be part of the platform and taken seriously, this won’t be a problem.
What’s wrong with saying that you’re angry and that you’re tired of your voting bloc being taken for granted, months before the election? It would stupid not to use whatever leverage they have right now, before the convention, to make sure that their concerns aren’t swept aside.
So what’s it going to be? Are the Democrats going to alienate 18 million voters by threatening them, insulting them, and avoiding dealing with their legitimate concerns, or is Obama going to give those voters positive reasons to vote for him in November?
Gee Charity, which particular comment were you referring to? The recent one where I slammed McCain for his “misogynist’ frat-boy antics” and his disgusting behavior when he dumped his first wife after an accident left her disfigured? Are these the type of comments that suggest I am a right-wing plant? I am utterly offended that I am unable to post challenging comments here without being accused of right-wing leanings. If you knew my history and my participation in progressive organizations, especially for the advancement of womens health etc I believe you would be embarrassed that you have leveled that accusation in my direction. I have dedicated years of work in Africa and in third world countries protecting the health of women specifically reproductive health and reproductive rights. I would jump in front of a truck before I would ever support a right-wing agenda. I can only hope you have misinterpreted my comments, otherwise I am deeply offended.
And in turn, I think telling women they need a good “shoulder-shake” and whatever else you have threatened for them in other threads, and feeding into sensationalist and exaggerated / hyperbolic accounts of women voters / Hillary supporters acting in racist, homophobic, and otherwise repugnant ways, is offensive. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Or, what wiggles said.
Hmmm… Wonder what the excuse is for behaving that way toward someone on a very first encounter then?
As to the rest of your rant, I can only assume it’s directed at me as well, seeing as you didn’t name or quote anyone else. It might interest you to know that I’ve never participated in any of the flame wars on the subject, nor have I made any so-called threats. I view the whole thing more with curiosity than anything else, and have never expressed any other feelings on the subject. And I’ve never once said who I’m voting for.
But hey… it’s good to know wiggles isn’t alone in her mission to rip the heads off of innocent bystanders. Good job validating that point for me.
I do hope you get your wish on election day. Otherwise, I fear the world may not be safe.
Those McCain women wouldn’t have voted for Obama if he was running against George Wallace. Forget about em
Lottie, I don’t know prairielily personally, but I’ve seen her comment on various blogs for about two years now, and she is not a senseless *ranter* whose mission is to *rip the heads off of innocent bystanders*. These are tense subjects to be certain, but prairielily =/ inflammatory ranting. Read her comment again.
Charity, I see you use the word ‘threatened’ Are you simply playing into peoples fears or do you seriously consider my comments to be threatening? I certainly did not join this forum to be abused (calling me a right-wing plant is abusive) accused of threatening behavior, and denigrated for asking a question, or offering a challenging position. You are making assumptions about me without knowing me based on a few posts, and as a newcomer to this website I have been made to feel totally unwelcome. You have extended no charity in your comments, and unless someone here offers at least a welcoming tone I will go and find another group of women to exchange views with.
I am not even living in the US and if this is how you welcome women from around the world it is very disappointing.
Although I’m new here myself, I would like to offer the welcoming tone that seems to have been missing. I understand exactly how you’re feeling; I’ve had similar encounters here myself. But there really are some decent and reasonable people here, and I hope you will stick around.
I’ll look forward to hearing from you again soon. :-)
it appears that the dem status quo is letting Hillary know that she must behave to receive the prize of VP. and/or debt forgiveness. (to be able to fully engage in doing what she needs to do: get obama elected)
It’s an interesting process, very close to how we see men operating in their personal relationships. The viciousness of the fight, the make up period, hillary has been courted by obama behind the scenes, visits, calls, “softening her up”, kissing her ass, he still needs something she has. Time heals, pissed off and hurt begins to subside, we move on, as warriors do.
But here we are, with the media playing their comfortable piggish role, beginning to spot light the fact that Hillary’s behavior is being monitored, she is still on the not so short list and being considered as a running mate. The message has been crafted well and the message is, If you will behave well, the way we specify you should, then you may still win the prize.
I think letting her nomination languish for so long is costing obmama in ways he can’t even imagine with pissed off women.
What even Frank Rich didn’t touch on (in this article, I think he’s brought it up in th past) is how the defeat of Hillary Clinton is also a defeat of the DLC ( and it’s demographic subset “the reagan democrats”) and its early 90s reinvention of the democratic party as an openly racist, pro-corporate, free trade party that worked to advance some of the most brutal attacks on poor people since, well, I don’t know when. Whatever I think of Barack Obama, his fundraising strategy broke the back of the DLC money making aparatus in a way that is truly beautiful to behold. My hope is that he can win the presidency and therefore break the K-Street project with the same efficiency. Those things are going to have much longer term political implications than whatever policies he personally advances during his presidency.
Although it’s been overshadowed by issues of identity I do believe that the (let’s cross our fingers) death of the DLC is behind a lot of the hostility that democrat voting white suburban men and women feel towards Barack Obama. Their democratic party is a party of NAFTA and the hedge fund industry that conceives of feminist issues soley in terms of the legality of abortion.
Well, that and, underneath all the nattering about experience or love of HRC they are just racist and are horrified by the thought of a black man having such political power. I spent my whole life as a white girl raised by a while family; I know how we are taught to think about black men and how feminist language is used to coat the constant message of “black men just want to rape you”.
But that said, I think that is just an unconcious, emotional reinforcement of a concious policy disagreement.
Comments on this entry are closed.