3 June 2008 - 12:37pm
White women to vote against reproductive rights to spite Obama
Yeah, that'll show him!
John McCain is in favor of forced pregnancy, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.
John McCain's healthcare plan is "let the market handle it" (like it has been handling it so far), but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.
John McCain is obsessed with fighting wars and extending the war of choice on Iraq, but these women would rather vote for him than Obama.
Why? Because they seem to feel that Hillary Clinton is somehow entitled to the nomination, despite the fact that she didn't get the votes.
What's dangerous for the Democratic Party is that, for many women, the eye of the storm has moved beyond Hillary or anything she does at this point. The offense has turned personal. They are now in their own orbit, having abandoned popular Democratic Websites that reveled in crude anti-Hillary outpourings -- and established new ones on which they trade stories of the Obama people's nastiness. . The women talk of being taken for granted by a party leadership that never spoke out on some of the outrageous Hillary bashing -- and despite the close race, joined the early rush to crown Obama. . .
"Many of us feel slighted," said Lynn Eyrich Harvey, 76, from Los Gatos, Calif. "We feel that years of supporting the party is unimportant, that we are to sit down and shut up -- but be sure to vote Democratic in November." Passions can change, one supposes, but the women I hear from do not see the rampant sexism, particularly toward older women, as isolated gaffes but as a systemic dismissal of them -- an enormous voting bloc that has been reliably Democratic.
"How Obama's campaign has treated Hillary will not be forgotten," Janet Rogers, 55, who runs a Bed and Breakfast in Medina, Ohio, wrote me. "I will vote for McCain if Hillary is not the nominee. My husband and friends all feel the same way."
[via TGW]
How did Obama's campaign treat Hillary? She was the one always attacking him, remember?
It was her election to lose -- she had all the advantages early on -- and she lost it. She ran a lousy campaign, reinvented herself every week, and used political rhetoric of the tone and slant that fits perfectly with Karl Rove politics. A lot of Democrats have been looking at Hillary and just saying "ugh, no more."
If things were reversed, and the African American male candidate were the establishment politician defending the DLC's control of the Party, and the woman were the new face who spoke about politics with an entirely different tone and who inspired people into believing that change really is possible, then I'm quite sure the woman would win.
Clinton is a Clinton. Clinton has baggage. But what's worse, her political style, her campaign, her rhetoric all are rooted in the 90s, and sound way too much like more of the same than many would like.
You want to vote for John McCain? Knock yourself out. And think about the Supreme Court you are leaving to your daughters and granddaughters. Think about the fraying social safety net under yet another term of thrashing. Think about the Global Gage Rule and how it's being applied at home. Think about our failing schools. Think about perpetual war. Think about the nail in the coffin of progressive values you are driving in with a vote for McCain. All because your candidate did not win.
More women will run. Women will win. This is not going to change.
But in what kind of America? Change has to happen now, or we are setting this country back even more.
media girl also blogs at other places.
Similar entries
- Barack Obama's historic speech nobody is talking about (video)
- True class: 'God damn the Democrats' says the, um, Democrat
- This was Hillary's nomination to lose, and she -- not the media -- lost it
- Once again, a disturbing side of Hillary Clinton
- The Netroots VS The Democratic Presidential Candidate, redux
store
Buy stuff here.
Comments
Because two people were quoted in a story that's obviously intended to promote that point of view, obviously all of the millions of Clinton supporters feel the exact same way.
I wish there were an emoticon for eye-rolling.
Most people are smart enough to realize that it would be stupid to vote for someone whose views are 180 degrees away from their own. Some people may have tantrums right now, but come November they won't vote for McCain.
Not to mention the fact that many Obama supporters were saying the exact same thing all spring, that they'd vote McCain or not vote at all (basically the same thing) is Clinton clinched the nomination.
And the Clinton campaign was treat horribly. Not only by the Obama camp (they're political opponents, mudslinging is expected) but by the mainstream media. Clinton's campaign has from day one been portrayed as trivial and unimportant. It's the true misogynistic colors of this country gleaming at full force.
Maybe when you post a portion of an article you should read it. Neither of those women said they thought Clinton was entitled to anything. The first expressed the (very true) sentiment that Clinton supporters have pretty much been told to sit down and shut up this whole time, and that they have essentially been dismissed from being "real" Democrats. Clinton and her supporters have been treated horribly this whole primary season, and that is what that woman is complaining about.
Of course, if Obama has a brain he will choose Clinton as his running mate. As a pair they would essentially be unstoppable.
You've assumed all white women supported Clinton or at least that all Clinton supporters are white women. That's a sweeping generalization that's not entirely correct. I know men and people of varying races who supported Clinton as well as white women who supported Obama.
She was regarded by the press as inevitable. The media dismissed other candidates out of hand. Did Clinton get harsher coverage than Kucinich? Or Dodd? Talk about being treated as trivial!
Clinton started getting harsh treatment from the media when she turned nasty after not winning the nomination, as planned, on Super Tuesday. Since then she has led an unseemly campaign, treating Obama like an errant child (talk about disrespect).
And yet she got nothing like the shark frenzy treatment by the press of Obama -- over flag pins and preachers and other nonsense, and Clinton did not hesitate to join in on that.
How did Clinton get harsh treatment like what Obama got? Your crying victim does not add up.
Oh sure, there were meanie bloggers who dished out their usual misogynistic crap. But did Obama chime in on that the way Clinton was going off with racist remarks?
Now she's doing what she's good at -- saying one thing while doing another. This time it's "endorsing" Obama while not (by keeping her delegates). Just like "taking responsibility" for her vote for the Iraq war, while not.
I don't know why she's doing this, though I suspect defending the DLC's power base in the Democratic Party is a big part of it.
She's not showing good judgment at this point, which undermines her credibility as a candidate. Right now she's making an ass of herself.
And as for a joint ticket -- ha! Just what Obama should do: Bow to Clinton's pressure and have a lobbyist lover like Clinton team up with the man who's out to reform the disgusting control lobbyists have over our government. It doesn't add up.
Actually, yes, a LOT of Hillary supporters feel that way, my own mother has said that she wouldn't vote at all if Clinton didn't get the nomination.
"Most people are smart enough to realize that it would be stupid to vote for someone whose views are 180 degrees away from their own. Some people may have tantrums right now, but come November they won't vote for McCain."
They just won't vote at all. It happens a lot, if they don't like the candiates they just don't vote. Why? Because people are STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.
If Obama has a brain he WON'T choose her as his running mate.
...where to ship the boxes of coat hangers.