Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
May
16
I don’t know about you, but I feel like my head is about to explode.
Some posts, some contact info. Let people know how you feel, preferably with some backup as to why, but please, also try to offer some solutions. What is it that you want? Because no matter how much I wanted Al Gore to win, and no matter how wrong I know the SCOTUS was, and no matter how much I didn’t want George Bush to be president, I live in this country and I accept it’s basic structure and the ways we have that allow us to voice our concerns, and solve our problems. Living in a democracy means someone will always “lose” an election. But it shouldn’t mean that we take out our disappointment by being self-destructive.
I understand that some people are afraid that giving any credence to Clinton Supporters Count Too will legitimize their efforts. Guess what? Too late. The source of their anger – sexism in the 2008 presidential primary campaigns – is real. It’s their tactics that are unreal.
So what can anyone do? For one thing, let them get it out. Just let them. Read it, respond to it you like, but my recommendation: don’t make moves that escalate it. That’s a no-win move. The best reaction would be to understand it, but it’s very clear that many people don’t have a clue about how to do that. Then, consider solutions that you would accept if you were in their shoes. It’s fine to say, what you want, you may not be able to get. But here’s what you can get. And here’s what you will lose if you don’t find a better way to resolve your anger.
1. Read this column.
2. Read this post.
3. Contact Clinton Supporters Count Too:
More contacts info here.
4. Leave a comment on one or all of these blog posts (and find more by going here – I’ve just included a few):
Buckeye State Blog here and here
The Mahablog (highly recommended)
5. Got more ideas? Put them in the comments.
6. Whatever you do, be smart – don’t shut down the conversation, don’t tell people to get over it and don’t call anyone sweetie while you are making your case for how you see the Clinton Supporters Count Too effort. That’s what got us here in the first places eons ago.
Today, I’ve got a speaking engagement and a child returning from a three-day class trip, and an all-day symposium with Eleanor Clift in Akron tomorrow. So I can’t say how much I’m going to be skipping around commenting and checking on this.
But seriously – if you cannot identify with how these voters are feeling – if you don’t understand why they are feeling that way – then you might want to consider not addressing them at all. Because right now, the anger will keep them from being able to hear pretty much all of us. But eventually, they will be ready. And if we want to win in November, we damn well better not blow it when they are. This does not mean they get what they want, which I’m assuming is Clinton as the nominee. It means that they get treated like the voters they are, with respect.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 12:10 pm May 16th, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaigning, Civil Rights, Democrats, Elections, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Ohio, Politics, Social Issues, Women
Comments
108 Responses to “The relevance of Clinton Supporters Count Too”
Leave a Reply
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
There are thousands who won’t vote for Obama under any circumstances. The misogyny has been so extreme in the last five months, they feel like battered women. Smart women never go back. It’s as simple as that.
I don’t advocate voting for McCain but writing in Hillary.
Give your neighbor a Kleenex and a McCain campaign button.
I am dumbfounded…
There is an opportunity to either break the ceiling of gender to elect our first female president or elect our first african american president. There is so much cult of personality here, that people are loosing sight of the bigger picture. There is sexism and their is racism in this country, and it doesn’t move either cause forward if there is a tit for tat…
Four more years of republicans. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I wept when GWB stole the election and again when he won in ’04… I couldn’t fathom that people believed the lies. Those of you who are saying “I will vote for McCain” are poster chilren for Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannnity. And, pardon if this is overly dramatic… but you will have the blood of those who die in Iraq on your hands, not to mention the regression of women’s right to choose on your conscious.
This is not about Clinton, it is not about Obama. Either one would be inifinitely better than being subjected to another republican ruler. Please look beyond yourselves.
This is not about racism. Once and for all, this isn’t about YOU, okay?!
This is about SEXISM! It’s about a truly great candidate being written off by the DNC for an inexperienced, unknown candidate who, when looked at through the lens of a presidential candidacy, appears more and more like a truly untenable person for that position – one whom I, and millions of others, could NEVER VOTE FOR REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY PROMOTES HIM!
Given this situation, it is clearly sexist for the DNC to shove Hillary out the back door, without so much as a by-your-leave, when she is a known fighter for the American people.
THAT’S WHAT IT’S ALL ABOUT!
There is no way you will ever convince me or millions of other women that, given the same circumstances, a man in this position would be handed his hat and told to skeedaddle.
Now, how about you Obama supporters coming on over to OUR way of thinking instead of expecting “the little ladies” to play nice and get in line?! Hmmmmmm? Just a thought.
And THAT’S DR. “SWEETIE”, TO YOU!
Jill, actually I don’t identify at all with them, because I’ve supported the losers most of the time in the nomination races, but understand that you can’t always get your way in a democracy. I voted for Gary Hart in 1984, and would have supported Gore in 1988 and Tsongas in 1992 and Dean in 2004, had they still been viable options at the time of the Ohio primary. I was disappointed every time and not optimistic many of those times (I never believed Kerry would win), but I’ve still voted for the better candidate in November. All I’m seeing is mindless anger at Obama and baseless accusations that he’s run a sexist campaign, not any sort of positive endorsement of McCain.
Clinton is losing fair and square, not because the “DNC” or anyone decreed it to be so. And no Leela, the reason I’m a Democrat is to avoid the bigots, so I would never cast a vote for a race baiter–not for Reagan nor for Bush the first nor for Hillary. So I can’t come over to your side. A Democratic party that nominated a race baiter would no longer be my party.
Grow up.
I support Hillary and will be very unhappy if she doesn’t secure the nomination. However, I’ll be far more unhappy if McCain gets elected. At least Obama’s record on women’s issues is solid — McCain would be a disaster.
I feel like those of you who want to vote for McCain are willing to brutalize your allies (and our daughters) just to derail the chances of a dem getting in to the White House.
If you want to protest, I beg you, please find a way with less collateral damage and fewer friendly-fire casualties.
Our daughters will not be overly brutalized by 4 years of McCain, but rather by a society that is still so steeped in misogyny that even women join in the degradation of other women.
I can never support a candidate (Obama) who stands blithely by and refuses to object to sexual bigotry, all the while benefiting from it. It’s hypocritical and disgusting behavior that, as far as I am concerned, completely guts his credibility.
I will continue to work hard and contribute my money to make HRC the nominee – and should that not happen, I will write in “Hillary Clinton” come November. As much as I want a Democrat in the White House, I’d rather see us lose and perhaps walk away chastened by our willingness to avert our eyes at such a blatant injustice.
As much as I want a Democrat in the White House, I’d rather see us lose and perhaps walk away chastened by our willingness to avert our eyes at such a blatant injustice.
You mean you’d rather women lose the right to choose? Because make no mistake, that’s what a McCain presidency would mean.
John Paul Stevens is 88 years old. If a Republican gets to nominate his replacement, then the Supreme Court will have a majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade
Hillary didn’t lose this race because of sexism, although I agree there was some of that. She lost this race because she hired an awful campaign manager who gave her terrible advice. Mark Penn thought California was a winner-take-all state, which it hasn’t been since 1972. If I were her, I’d ask for my money back.
it’s not sexist to get your inevitable ass kicked in a primary.
My anger over the last few months has only intensified with each act of condescension, slimey fingerpointing, and smooth flashtalk from Senator Obama. I used to think that I could vote for him, but his arrogance and cavalier attitude disgust and scare me. If Hillary is not the nominee, I am writing her in.
“Our daughters will not be overly brutalized by 4 years of McCain”
Check the ages of the current justices on the SC and please reconsider that.
“I can never support a candidate (Obama) who stands blithely by and refuses to object to sexual bigotry, all the while benefiting from it.”
It’s not his job to protect her against sexism any more than it is her job to protect him against racism. Hillary has had to endure blatantly sexist comments from the MSM and things like those absurd nutcracker dolls and the jackasses with the “iron my shirt” signs. Obama has had to endure bomb threats and vandalism. Neither of them has had it easy.
While I still think Hillary is the better candidate, I will definitely vote for Obama if he winds up being the nominee and it frustrates me to no end that those who I have worked beside in support of Hillary are going to do something so absurd and destructive as to work for McCain. I’m sure Hillary would be disgusted and saddened at what you are doing in her name.
P. Springer – for the record, I would say that your comments most closely mirror my feelings on the situation. Thanks for reading and commenting. And if you have thoughts about how to turn this situation into an opportunity, I am all ears (well, eyes).
“It’s about a truly great candidate being written off by the DNC for an inexperienced, unknown candidate”
She is a truly great candidate but, come on, the DNC didn’t write off Hillary. She competed against her opponents under a set of rules that everyone agreed upon at the start and under those rules, she has fallen behind Obama. If you want to blame someone, blame who I blame: Mark Penn. He was a complete and utter disaster and I hope he doesn’t get a dime for all his “help.”
Wiley – thanks for the comment – again, like with P. Springer, what you write closely parallels my feelings.
Besides saying grow up (because I think we know that’s unfortunately not going to be too persuasive – would that it were though!), what can we do – how do we turn this into some kind of opportunity?
None of the Obama supporters posting on this site seem to be taking your advice, Jill. I’m not surprised.
It’s ironic that you’re appearing with Clift. She’s been particularly vicious in her attacks on Clinton.
I’ve worked for and voted for reproductive choice for my entire adult life. So has Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama was more interested in protecting his political future than he was in making a moral statement when he refused to take a stand on some issues involving choice when he was in the IL state senate.
Obama, his supporters and the DNC need to understand how serious this issue is when people like me will risk a McCain Supreme Court nominee rather than vote for Obama.
I can hear myself in some of these pleas to hold my nose and vote for Obama to avoid losing Roe. That has been used on us ever since Roe became law and I for one just don’t care anymore. If the second and third wave feminist’s don’t care about sexism why should I keep putting my butt on the line for them. I am 65 years old and am tired of waiting my turn, therefore, this time I will not hold my nose and vote for some one who truly offends me….no more ladies, no more.
If we loose Roe than so be it, maybe the young women need a lesson in how hard it is to maintain rights that were secured for them by us. We endured being called every name in the book, having our womanhood being questioned, marching in the streets of DC, being fired, yes , and more. Lets see them do it for a change and maybe they won’t take it so casually anymore.
Tess – I know – they are as deaf as the next person but truly that will be a problem for them that they’ll have to deal with. I am trying hard to find a way into a few folks in the Obama campaign – we’ll see. Worst they can do is say no – and I’ve heard that before.
A note on Clift: I didn’t appear with her at all. The group hosting the symposium invited me to cover the event as a blogger – which I did. I then interviewed Clift. She was excellent – and actually quite sympathetic I thought toward Clinton during the presentation. I confess that I haven’t read a ton of her stuff during this election – just a bit here and there.
I agree with you 100% re: the need for Obama, his supporters and the DNC to understand how serious this issue is. I think the key however is going to be, figuring out what the solution is.
I just don’t think it works to say, it’s our candidate or we’ll mutiny. I just can’t support that.
P. Springer,
Hillary has been held responsible for the vast majority of the racist attacks on Obama by his campaign and his supporters. Obama, himself, has framed Clinton as a racist.
I agree that Mark Penn doesn’t deserve a dime but that’s not the issue.
That’s interesting Kathryn, what you write.
But I would like to ask you one thing – to clarify – are you saying that Obama offends you or McCain, when you write, “therefore, this time I will not hold my nose and vote for some one who truly offends me….no more ladies, no more.”?
I share you exasperation at the effect of what we thought would be good, gender-neutral evolution. But i’m sure like you, we imagine gender-neutral meaning void of all sexism, not saying, “it’s unpleasant but it happens.”
I’m giving an extreme amount of energy to that issue and don’t know what yet exactly to do – but everywhere I go, I raise the issue and listen to how others feel about that and why. Because think how far we have to go if we’re just realizing this difference between us now?
Thanks for reading and commenting.
Jill: My guess is that Clinton herself will have to set the tone; I imagine most of her supporters will take her cues, even those who currently are saying no way.
One thing I’m noticing is that there’s a disconnect between some of the angrier HRC supporters saying that sexism is at work here, and the apparent lack of any such talk coming out of the Clinton campaign itself. I think they realize they made mistakes. And let’s face it: women are a majority of all voters and an even bigger majority of voters in Democratic primaries. Obviously Obama has attracted a significant amount of female support or he never could have gotten to this point. I doubt the women who voted for Obama would appreciate being told that they’re self-hating or abetting sexism.
There’s an idea: perhaps female Obama supporters could take the lead in the “outreach” process.
“if you have thoughts about how to turn this situation into an opportunity, I am all ears (well, eyes).”
I’m crossing my fingers and waiting until after the 3rd to see what lady in the pants suit says.
Whatever happens, I have every expectation that she will work her heart out to make sure we aren’t stuck with McCain. I hope that the folks who are threatening to vote for McCain will continue to be inspired by her and follow her lead.
P. Springer – yes – I’ve been saying that I believe it won’t got past June 3 though I have to say, sometimes, when I see or her Clinton, I get pretty concerned. I understand the fight, the not wanting to give in, but it really is going to have to be Solomon’s Choice here.
First off I want to clearly state that I am a BLACK MALE and I wholeheartedly agree with the anger, frustration, and dissapointment Hillary supporters and women in general feel. I cannot believe this is actually happening. This was suppossed to be Hillariy’s presidency. And while I know nothing in life is guaranteed the rise of Obama and fall of Hillary is too hard to fathom.
Eight years ago didn’t we elect an inexperienced charasmatic man for president over a more experienced though less flashy man? And we also didn’t elect a man who already had experience in the White House (although he was VP) over one who had none at all. So we trash the Republicans for doing this then 8 years later us as Democrats do the same thing again??? We pick and inexperienced charasmatic man over an experienced less flashy woman?? A woman who has had experience in the White House (first lady or not). History truely is repeating itself.
I agree there has been ALOT of sexism directly and indirectly during this campaign. For the most part Obama has had a free ride and everyone has blown his head up making him think He’s Jesus or something. Yeah he took a little heat but only after the press was called out on the lack of heat directed to him. Loyalties have been broken, former Clinton allies have become Judas towards her. And for the love of God why is it so sensitive for you to bring up race rather he is black or not? It’s ok for over 90% of my people to blindly support Obama but anytime Hillary, Bill or anyone for that matter brings up race It’s wrong? Nobody EVER gets 90% of a vote for any demographic It’s too disproportionate. Blind following the blind without even looking into the person.
Having said that women are to blame too. Imagine if 90% of women supported Clinton. She would be our nominee. Women unlike Afican Americans aren’t as loyal to a cause. I had a female co-worker who was mad at me for supporting Hillary. She said women cant be President because women are weak! I told her that for her to say that means that she has a low self esteem and low self image of herself. Some women demand rights while others believe a woman should stay in their place and be quiet and submissive. If women are dissapointed about this election they should be most dissapointed with themselves first.
I personally think Obama is weak and in over his head. He’s like that cute guy in high school who is attractive, charasmatic, wheels you in and tells you everything you ever wanted to hear and ultimately delivers nothing. Hillary may be strong and firm and maybe even as some call her a b—h but at least we know where she stands. To get up everyday and FIGHT in spite of all the negativity, nay sayers, backstabbers and smile and campaign hard as she is shows me she is a leader. Thats who I want running this country.
Now on a controversial note…I think Obama is the Anti-christ. Comes outta nowhere overnight, mixed, soars to poularity and speaks of peace. Don’t tell anyone I said that before I recieve death threats. Unless something unbelieveable happens I WILL NOT support Obama in the fall. As a male I am just as sickened and disgusted as many of you are. No I dont want Mccain in their either but I could be wrong but something about Obama just isn’t right to me. After hearing so many in my race call me a sellout, loser e.t.c. for supporting Hillary (im sorry I have an identity and dont support people for reasons unfounded) I will do almost anything (within reason) to ensure he dosent win. As much as I hate to say it I’d rather have Mccain in. Who knows Obama may go on to be the greatest President of all time but I am a major doubter and skeptic. The presidency of the United states IS NOT a popularity contest!! Change? Do people honestly believe he’s gonna get in there and make the sun shine and birds chirp again? Do they not know about legislation and voting and getting bills passed and catering to lobbiest e.t.c.
“Hillary has been held responsible for the vast majority of the racist attacks on Obama by his campaign and his supporters.”
I’ve never seen anything suggesting that Hillary or her supporters had anything to do with the bomb threats or the vandalism.
When all is said and done, I don’t believe Obama thinks Hillary is a racist any more than Hillary thinks Obama is a sexist. The media tends to dumb everything down into soundbites, takes them out of context, and then deconstructs them endlessly in the most sensational way possible.
“Barack Obama was more interested in protecting his political future than he was in making a moral statement when he refused to take a stand on some issues involving choice when he was in the IL state senate.”
His “present” votes were part of a strategy he had worked out with the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council. For more info, see:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712140004
Jill, I agree with Kathryn. Some people have to learn the hard way.
Clinton is a politician and loves the Democratic Party. I’m sure that she would prefer that we all support Obama. It’s not going to happen. It’s not all about Clinton. It’s about the way women are viewed in this society. If my own “family” of Democrats won’t treat me with respect, then I’m going to find another family.
I honestly don’t think that there is anything that Obama can do. You could encourage him to apologize for flipping off Hillary in his oh-so-adolescent, passive-aggressive way but he won’t do it.
Thank you for being so civil.
It saddens me that, in politics, people feel it’s not enough to support one’s own candidate, one must tear down their opponents. It entrenches the “us vs. them” mindset that is so destructive to solving the problems that plague our country.
ken: “We pick and inexperienced charasmatic man over an experienced less flashy woman??”
If it were experience that people were after in this election cycle then Biden would be the nominee. As much as I think Hillary is the superior candidate, it was shrewed of Obama, in light of 7 years with the worst president in modern history and congressional approval ratings at historic lows, to frame himself as a change candidate and Washington outsider. If Penn was worth his salt (let alone his fee), he would have recognized this and Hillary would have been the nominee months ago.
ken: “I personally think Obama is weak and in over his head.”
That doesn’t show from the way he has managed his campaign and his resiliency in dealing with the obstacles it has faced.
ken: “Now on a controversial note…I think Obama is the Anti-christ.”
To be honest, it’s less controversial than nutty. Apologies for my ad hominem slur but, come on!
P. Springer,
I didn’t suggest that Clinton or her supporters had been accused of making bomb threats or engaging in vandalism.
I’ve seen the media matters explanation before. Have you bothered to read it? Obama voted present to avoid taking a principled stand on issues of choice. Period. That’s exactly what I said.
Obama’s only conviction seems to be that he will say or do anything that he has to do to get elected.
“Obama voted present to avoid taking a principled stand on issues of choice. Period. That’s exactly what I said.”
I think you are confusing the Solomon article and Media Matters’ comments. Obama was doing exactly what Planned Parenthood asked him to do.
Quoting…
As ABCNews.com reported on July 17, Obama voted “present” on the two parental notification bills in 2001 “with the explicit support of the president and CEO of Illinois Planned Parenthood Council.” The Chicago Sun-Times further reported on December 4 that the “goal” of the strategy was “to entice moderate Republicans and Democrats to also vote present, helping to defeat the bills.” The article quoted Sutherland saying of Obama, “The poor guy is getting all this heat for a strategy we, the pro-choice community, did.”
I’m not confusing anything. Obama went to great lengths to avoid being seen as a supporter of some elements of reproductive choice. He demonstrated a lack of leadership and conviction.
“Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting “present.” She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.
“He came to me and said: ‘My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,’ ” said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. “A ‘present’ vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted.”
“What it did,” she continued, “was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so” because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. “A ‘present’ vote would protect them. Your senator voted ‘present.’ Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means.”
While Sutherland was happy to give Obama latitude in voting “present,” rather than “no,” she was quick to note that “it’s also not a ‘yes’ vote.”
As reported by The Wall Street Journal, some of the specific abortion votes in question include two occasions in 1997 (HB 382 and SB 230) when he voted “present” on bills which would have prohibited a procedure referred to by its critics as “partial-birth abortion.” In 2001, he voted “present” on two parental notification abortion bills (HB 1900 and SB 562), and he voted “present” on a series of bills (SB 1093, 1094, 1095) that sought to protect a child if he or she survived a failed abortion.”
********************************
The most disturbing part of this article was the notion that Obama intended to deliberately keep the people he represented ignorant of his actions and their consequences.
Tess, from the text you quoted: ““What it did,” she continued, “was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so” because of how their votes would be used against them electorally.”
You’re completely dismissing their strategy. If they had voted ‘yes’ it would have had a good chance of leading to them being voted out of office and replaced by anti-choice candidates. Don’t forget how controversial issues like partial-birth abortion and parental notification are for much of the electorate.
It’s pragmatic, not unprincipled. This sort of thing happens all of the time in politics.
P. Springer,
Yes, P., that’s exactly what happens in politics. That’s what happened when Hillary Clinton argued against NAFTA to her husband and his aides and then worked for it once the final decision had been made. Obama has repeatedly used that “paragmatic” response against Hillary Clinton. His campaign has portrayed her as untrustworthy when she acted pragmatically.
Obama sucked in millions of supporters by pretending to be “above it all” when he’s actually very good at playing dirty.
The bottom line is that Clinton would be the better president. Obama has repeatedly attacked her character and employed sexist language for political purposes. Voters, particularly, women should not reward those kinds of tactics. We need to stand up for ourselves. Clearly, we can’t rely on the media or Senator Obama to set appropriate standards of behavior.
[edited due to threat/curse expressed toward other individuals]
EXPLAIN TO GOD WHY YOU VOTED MCCAIN!
Thanks for the info. I contacted them and offered financial support, as well as to volunteer for the ground effort should Obama and his cohorts succeed in gaming this nomination.
“Hillary will work her heart out for Obama if he is the candidate”
Yes, she probably will, but I was here in Florida and saw how hard she worked for Kerry in 2004. At least in my area, she worked harder for him than he worked for himself. Look where that got her.
I’m voting for Hillary one way or the other–either with her name on the ballot or as a write in. Obama has done NOTHING to deserve the nomination (unless you count giving inspiring speeches).
Re: Comment #33
I edited that comment because it included an all upper-case threat/curse targeting other people.
The Blood of All Innocent Men, “”Women”" and Children who Die in “Iraq” Will Be On Your Ballots’ Hand…..
God will not be mocked!
Please tell me how women who care so much for “women’s rights” would vote for McCain. I don’t think you all care much about sexism. I think that is your EXCUSE. What has Barack done to hurt your “cause”? McCain is going to add judges who will take away your right and your daughters right and your grand daughters right to choose. But that doesn’t matter right….. McCain plans to continue this fake war in Iraq that was supposedly started because the terror attacks on the USA then because of fake weapons of mass destruction but you don’t care about that either right. McCain thinks that the average American is better off today then 8 years ago but that doesn’t matter because you agree with that. This little fake campaign of yours is annoying. Your a bunch of bitter women(probably men) who will hurt this county because you didn’t get what you want. I am a Black…women… single mother… of a daughter… who supports Clinton and I will ABSOLUTELY vote Obama if he is the nominee because I am NOT DUMB ENOUGH TO VOTE AGAINST MY BEST INTEREST! You people need to stop lying to the people of this great nation!
Will one person please tell me two things Obama has done that was sexist.
Everyone seems to think the Democratic party will be united once we have the convention. I don’t even want to be a Democrat any more. I cannot and will not vote for Obama. The man has no experience. He doesn’t know how to do any of the things he claims he can. He is arrogant and condescending. Also, he was always a negative campaigner. He was like the little girl who throws a rock and then hides her hand. Does anyone remember his “Bush, Cheney lite” comment? He started it, and then would cry foul, along with the media, helping him to get er done.
I have always liked McCain. He really is in the middle, despite his recent pandering to the far right. I’m going to switch parties to become an Independent because for the first time, Nebraska switched to the caucus system, which was a complete sham. We were shouted down and told our votes would not count. Many Clinton voters got up and left. We were robbed. I will not be going to another caucus, since there is no requirement for caucus goers to be registered voters. We don’t know who those people were. No one showed id. We don’t know if the were Republicans, Democrats or Martians. It was ridiculous.
So, the Democratic party can take the female vote for granted all it wants. I asked to be removed from their mailing list, and I am very happy to see the rise of Clinton Supports Count Too. I feel my voice and my vote has been silenced. So, I want to see the web site. Even though I’m unemployed, I’ve been supporting Clinton with my small donations. I’ll be happy to see them go towards the defeat of Obama. But don’t ask me not to vote for McCain. I think if I vote for McCain, my vote will count.
SK Booker
I will never, ever vote for Obama in November if Hillary is not on the ticket. Part of this is a protest against Hillary’s treatment, and part of this is the fact that I think Obama is downright dangerous. He is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I’ve done my homework. He is corrupt and charismatic, and the combination of those two qualities is political dynamite. I’ll take my chances of a moderate Republican over the cult-like tide that is pushing Obama forward.
And BTW, who said I was going to vote FOR McCain? I may write Hillary in. I may vote for a third party candidate. I have not yet decided, but one thing is for sure: I will NOT vote for Obama without Hillary. So you folks who keep calling for party unity need to stop chiding Hillary supporters and start calling on Obama to ask Hillary to be his VP (SHOULD he win the nomination, which is not certain). Because that is the ONLY chance in hell he has of winning in November.
I agree that there has been way too much sexism over the course of this campaign. I also agree that registering a protest of some kind is a worthwhile endeavor. I disagree, however, that jeopardizing a dem win in the GE is the way to do it. Beside the obvious problem that you punish all dems through your protest, you let the media, who were by far the worst offenders, completely off the hook. If anything, you provide them with a spectacle about which they can make more sexist observations and further boost their ratings.
I think it’s time that ‘winning’ is not the goal -we have let things go for all too long- having the fear card of what will happen if a republican gets in make us ‘get in line’ all too often.(we survived even Bush)
I have been a life long dem – very loyal – but I can no longer look away!!!! I am a woman and I want women to count!!!!
We should face that the Democratic party is corrupt in many ways- run by mostly middle-aged white men in the back rooms who only think of winning not making life better for all-so what we need is real change ( not B. O.’s BS. – he is a very political animal, not a savior!)- change how the dems do things – make it a party of the people – a party women have their real share of the say. We woman can only do that if we make our power felt, just like consumers , who refuse to buy a product! We can demand more female candidates, we can demand to do away with super delegates.Demand revotes in Michigan & Florida. We can demand that the media listen up!
Women issues cross all racial and economical lines – every person on this earth was born of a woman and yet how much of the world stage do we get? How can we help the suffering of women in the world if we don’t stand up for ourselves here? (Even if you do not support Hillary, as women we should let our outrage be known at the media bias)
Look around and be honest, where do we as women really stand? how many Supreme Crt Judges, how many CEO’s, are we 50/50 in congress, etc.? Are we so afraid of confrontation? Is that it?
IT IS TIME TO ROCK THE BOAT AND LEARN HOW TO SWIM!
Another ‘sweetie’ who says NO to towing the line, no vote for B. O. or status quo!
“having the fear card of what will happen if a republican gets in make us ‘get in line’ all too often.(we survived even Bush)”
Survived? Barely. Bush has been an unmitigated disaster. We are worse now than we were 7 years ago by virtually every metric by which one can measure a country.
“We should face that the Democratic party is corrupt in many ways- run by mostly middle-aged white men in the back rooms who only think of winning not making life better for all-so what we need is real change”
Hmmm, even if that were the case, how exactly does that differentiate them from the Republican party?
“Even if you do not support Hillary, as women we should let our outrage be known at the media bias”
Okay, I’m with ya on that.
I am not voting for Obama. Watching him sit by and capitalize on sexism in the media and laughing while his gruppies boo’ed when the has been Edwards was giving a speech were intolerable. The only power we have is solidarity and resolve.
Maybe the next DNC primary will treat all voters and candidates with dignity.
I am looking forward to watching Obama and all his mean bullying supporters fall in November.
I personally will not vote for Obama based on his voting record in Ill. and his lack of voting record in US Senate. By the way if you look at his voting record in Ill you will see that many of the bills passed in the Ill senate was work done by others and it was all pushed through in the year before he ran for the US senate. This is a brokered election. He talks about being for the poor people but all of his backers are rich college educated supporters. What does that tell you. He is backed by some of the longest term politicans in this governemnt yet talks about turning the page. Yet he is beginging all of those elected officals with him.
I will be writing in Hillary’s name on the ballot in Nov. because Obama will drive this country into the ground with all of his policies.
His pl;ans will cost the American people 1 trillion dollars. It will raise our taxes and we will all be affected by these actions. if his backers are all rich college educated supporters they can afford these increrases but the ones who pay all the bills for this country will be taxed on our 401K’s and saving.
Reading these comments leaves me somewhat perplexed. First, I supported Clinton, but primarily for two reasons:
first, she had the best positions on issues and second, the absolute necessity that the Republican party not be allowed back in the White House. The fact that Clinton is also a woman was, for me personally, a plus, but not more important per se than the other points.
Now, Clinton probably will not get the nomination. Why people now threaten to support McCain leaves me speechless. I understand, though find lacking, the simple excuse that “I wanted Clinton because she’s a woman and therefore will let my personal disappointment cause me to vote for McCain”. Such a person is probably not a hard core Democrat. More distressing are people who now try and drum up reasons to not support Obama. They are shallow.
He is not sexist, as the absence of any examples of it provided here show. In fact, he often took the high road when Clinton took the low road (her piling on over Wright and Ayers at the ABC debate, for instance). As for petulance ruling the day: acting like a 10 year old who didn’t get the gift she wanted is not good for the country, the party and most of all, women. And Obama would not
appoint another Roberts or Alito to the court. And it’s not all about Roe, it’s about the string of decisions from this court which have been detrimental to women: health, workplace, eduction, children, etc.
There’ll be another woman to run, believe me. And as importantly, more and more women in positions of political importance. But we need to realize that the next 4 years are critical. Please don’t let hurt feelings override reason and what’s in the best interests of women.
Denise – Your point(s) echo the misinformation that is being spread by the Republican party. Of which I suspect you are a member. Why? Because there is very little difference between Hillary and Obama on key issues. So you can’t raise the bogus “cost/taxes” issue as a reason to oppose Obama when they would also lead you to oppose Hillary. Besides the fact
that they are bogus issues, it does look like some trolling
is taking place here. As for Obama’s Illinois record, well, what counts is what he’d do in the White House. You can find that on his web site if you care to go there.
Danielle – At least let’s be fair. When the booing began at the Edwards speech, Obama raised his hand and signaled for them to be quiet…..and as one who watched when Hillary gave her speech in West Virginia, when she first mentioned Obama there was similar booing. That’s a reality of politics, that’s a reality of a race where emotions have been high. I voted for Hillary, I wanted her to win. But I also recognized her campaign made mistakes. She wasn’t “bullied”, she wasn’t a victim of sexism. Sure, Matthews took some hits at her, but that didn’t effect the outcome. And nothing Hillary underwent even begins to compare what occurred with Jeremiah Wright (nor the attempts to somehow make William Ayers an issue). And what about the two times she actually compliemented McCain in order to argue Obama wasn’t “ready”. No, there’s a lot of things to regret, on both sides. That’s why we now need to come together. And we can.
“He talks about being for the poor people but all of his backers are rich college educated supporters. What does that tell you.”
That rich, college educated people are just as capable as the rest of us of wanting our country, and everyone in it, to prosper in the long term.
One thing that’s worth considering is that it’s still possible for Hillary to get the nomination. If she does, we’re definitely going to need the Obama folks if we want Hillary to win in the GE.
Denise – How does Obama’s policies differ from Hillary’s?
You claim (and it’s a bogus Republican talking point) “costs/taxes” are the reason for your opposition. So, how would Hillary “cost” less? Unless you never were for her either.
P.Springer – I believe Obama has received millions of contributions of under $100 from the little people. Hillary has done well in that regard too. The person receiving the big donations is McCain.
And, for what it’s worth, college professors don’t have the big bucks to donate either (and the limit is $2,300 in case you don’t know about the limits on personal donations).
So, while I do agree with the need for unity, no matter who wins it, at least let’s stay in the realm of realism.
“Denise – Your point(s) echo the misinformation that is being spread by the Republican party. Of which I suspect you are a member.”
Hehe, that is my suspicion as well. Whether or not it’s the case in this instance, I have no doubt that mixed among the folks voicing their real concerns are a few GOP operatives working to exacerbate the divide in our party by making incendiary comments and spreading misinformation. If they’d use their energy for something positive they might be able to recover from the sorry shape they are currently in. Sadly, that’s just not their way.
I can’t believe how many people are actually feigning a “What sexism?” tone. If you haven’t seen the sexism against Hillary Clinton on tv from day one, you either don’t know what it is, or you just plain agree with it. That is unfortunate because it looks like payback time is about to come your party’s way.
P Springer – don’t put down the real discontent by crying out “GOP operatives” Just what are your motives??? “Hmmm, even if that were the case, how exactly does that differentiate them from the Republican party?” The point is – we should be different from the repub party!
What- should we do nothing???
Cut off the tip of a tumor and it will grow and spread – why are you so afraid of real change- no matter who is in office, its up to us to get off, or stay off our butts and do our part!!!!
New York Woman,
I was marching for Roe when you were probably in kindergarten. Women’s rights begin but do not end with control of our reproductive systems. In this new century, I’m not willing to reward a member of my own political party with my vote when he can’t be bothered to show me a minimum of courtesy.
As to the Iraq Way, I opposed it from the start. I don’t want to see it continued anymore than you do but we don’t need a Democratic president to end it. We need a Congress who will stop the funding. Things are looking good for Dem candidates in November. Even if we don’t get a veto-proof majority, we CAN stop the war.
In response to your personal attacks, I assure you that I am a woman and I’m not bitter. I’m angry. Obama has dismissed women of my generation throughout this campaign. I didn’t work for the Democratic Party for all these years to be told that Clinton’s years (and mine) as “just a wife” had no value or that the woman candidate attacks his policies when she’s in a “mood”.
Jodi P: “don’t put down the real discontent by crying out “GOP operatives””
I’m not. I chose my words very carefully to specifically avoid putting down the real discontent. I said: “I have no doubt that mixed among the folks voicing their real concerns are a few GOP operatives” Also, as I’ve said in previous posts, I fully agree that the sexism we’ve seen over the course of the last year needs to be addressed. I just disagree with the methods being suggested — they are incredibly self destructive and benefit only the GOP.
Jodi P: Just what are your motives???
Party unity. Defeat McCain. Prevent the country from falling any further than it already has.
Tess: “As to the Iraq Way, I opposed it from the start. I don’t want to see it continued anymore than you do but we don’t need a Democratic president to end it.”
Don’ forget about the SC. A dem president may be the only thing that stands between us and a SC stacked with conservatives.
Let the Democratic “leadership” & the besotted media have Obama. Let’s give Hillary a 3rd party run! She should not feel any allegiance to all those turncoats and traitors. I know I don’t, and I’ve been a Democrat all my life, as have all my family members. Not a one of us will vote for Obama.
The future of the US Supreme Court is the main reason why I haven’t decided to vote for McCain as opposed to writing in Clinton in order to deprive Obama of my once-dependable Democratic vote. At this moment, I’m in favor of letting the chips fall where they may. The level of vitriol toward women that has been expressed not just by Demoratic men but by Democratic women has astounded me. I think people need a reality check. Too many of Obama’s supporters have either abused Clinton on sexist terms or they’ve cheered it on.
Michelle Obama appeared to be the poster child for the Ken Starr contingent of the Democratic Party when she said that someone who couldn’t take care of their own family couldn’t be trusted to take care of the White House.
I can’t begin to tell you how offensive it was to see the wife of a Democratic candidate criticize a woman candidate because of her husband’s sexual behavior. That’s the kind of judgmental, sanctimonious bs that I would expect from the Dobson crowd.
JuJu: Let the Democratic “leadership” & the besotted media have Obama. Let’s give Hillary a 3rd party run! She should not feel any allegiance to all those turncoats and traitors.
Sorry, but that’s just plain nonsense. Who do you think helped her to get virtually half the vote? Democrats.
Very well then.
No one can make you vote for anyone you don’t want to.
One of the salient questions that arose first from the riots in Watts and then other riots was – why demonstrate your rage by burning down you own neighborhood?
And that’s what is happening here.
And if I were a Republican and a McCain supporter, reading these posts would make my heart jump for joy.
Like it or not here’s the basic difference between us and them: they put aside their differences and concentrate on winning. We bicker and hew ourselves to pieces.
Four more years of GOP/McCain control and there may not be another Democratic primary worth mentioning. The fire next time.
No one can make you vote for anyone. And in the end, Obama may indeed be the great pretender. I lose a little confidence in him almost every day.
But before you play right into the hands of your sworn enemies please do one thing, just in case it makes all the difference in the world – for your children and your children’s children.
Look around at this country and this world after eight years of George W. Bush.
Considering the state of the economy, the war, the ecology and fact that we are over peak oil imagine for a second what this country and this world looks like after four years of John McCain.
Like I said, maybe it doesn’t matter. Maybe Obama is the slow train to hell and McCain is the express. Maybe it’s all futile anyway.
But in the slight off chance that this may be the last election in American history that we can, in some way, forestall calamity, ask yourself: do you really want to throw those dice?
Thanks, Bad American. I started a comment, and then made the comment into a post and then deleted it all that said something kind of like that.
Many of us can related to FEELING this kind of anger after a long hard slog. Many of us might even continue to believe that Clinton is the better candidate. But Gore was better too – and Gore had the popular vote. And we know how that turned out.
Unless we’re willing to look like something between Italy or Zimbabwe, as far as governments and constitutions go, we need to wrap this up, not screw it up. And even then – it’s no sure thing -whichever one enters the GE.
[...] the heels of what I’ve written here and particularly here comes this from the AP: Obama strategist David Axelrod and former Clinton [...]
Even though I believe many of the “I’ll never vote for Obama” voices are born here of disappointment and will come into the fold by November, anyone who ultimately stays home or, worse, votes for McCAin should know that the result, if McCain wins, will be literal gridlock. Often, as now is the case, that’s not all that bad. But we need to implement Democratic policies immediately. So, those who help McCain (and not voting does), I hope you’re ready to accept the reality of people dying over the next 4 years because they don’t have health insurance, and that includes children. If you are, please let us know. We deserve that, at least.
Thank you, Jill, for the raucous but civil space. You asked, at the very beginning of this post, what it is we want (in my case and for the moment I’ll interpret this “we” as Clinton supporters), which I can only answer by telling you what I want, in reference to this election:
I no longer want to see women in the position of helpmeets. I want women in positions of the highest power.
I no longer want to occupy the position, myself, of helpmeet. I seek to exercise power.
I am not afraid of the “risible gender card.” I want a more generous, plausible discussion of gender imbalances, along with greater awareness that more than discussion needs to take place, now, to meaningfully address this imbalance.
I want the Democratic Party to acknowledge, reward, and represent the entire Party–through, for example, Obama’s appointment of a woman (possibly but not necessarily Hillary) to be his running mate. I will not accept the arguments, soon to be and already proferred, that he’ll need an experienced male to offset his perceived liabilities. I do not want a highly qualified woman/women being passed over due to the deficits of an underqualified man. I believe the risks and the benefits of this election should be shared.
I want change.
I want the obvious. I want parity. I want action. We can’t all have what we want, true–there are some Hillary supporters for whom it is President, or nothing–but for others, like myself, there are direct, identifiable ways in which the aspirations of the many can be honored.
I want the Democratic Party to unite. I want the Democratic Party to succeed. But it is, after all, just another political machine.
And when machines break down, you don’t fix them by stuffing the old, broken pieces back in. You get new ones. Or nothing works.
Against calling women names by both men and women:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/694199/what_right_we_have_to_talk_about_womens.html
There may be even more at stake than the SC – unity at all costs – is not the answer!(Either way, it’s we women who are being pressured, being asked to sacrifice!) We will never make true progress, if we don’t clean our own house! If we really fight for true and good representation, if we speak out with every penny we spend, there’s lots we can do , no matter who’s Pres. or on the SC!!!!
Some commenters – just some, not all – would benefit enormously from knowing how to write comments more like letters to the editor:
get rid of the exclamation marks
provide a link or two to support your assertions
give ground where you can to show credibility and temperance
and let your argument speak for itself
Otherwise, it’s all just bytes in the cyberspace that no one is going to really listen to.
And I would hope that the thing you most want to do is get across your message in a way that people can hear it.
FYI because I just put this warning on another post similar to this one: any more personal comments like calling Michelle Obama “pretty little fluffy wife” will be edited out. My blog, my judgement.
There’s been ample space here for venting like that – read and get glee if you want from others’ comments of the same type but if you want to only add personal and snide comments like that, ones that don’t contribute to the dialogue, find a different blog. The free for all is over.
Jodi P: There may be even more at stake than the SC – unity at all costs – is not the answer!
And voting for McCain is? Seems to me that the only beneficiary of that is McCain and the GOP. The GOP has a long history of throwing roadblocks up in front of the women’s movement. Why in the world would you want to give a vote to them?
Jodi P: We will never make true progress, if we don’t clean our own house!
A vote for McCain is more like moving next door than cleaning our own house.
Jodi P: If we really fight for true and good representation, if we speak out with every penny we spend, there’s lots we can do , no matter who’s Pres. or on the SC!!!!
I think you are dramatically underestimating the power of the president and the SC.
P Spr no, I’m not underestimating Pres or S.C. – we , the people should stop underestimating our own power! (sorry JMZ- ‘she’ writes like she talks- not as she would write to an editor – thank you for the opportunity) We can’t just go to the polls and think, ok, now they can fix everything.
I worked on almost every anti-war protest, hours in the cold and wet. We were screamed at, threatened. No, we didn’t stop the war. Still,I do believe,we made a difference. (By the By, I never saw B.O. there, nor was his name a topic, so I, for one, do not know how he really would have voted, if he were in the senate at the time, despite the speech he made. I have not been impressed.)
Protesting, speaking out can be done in many ways – votes, letters, choosing companies, products which support our views. Even small things have an effect – everything is politics!
Putting name calling aside and with a willingness to listen as well as speak (too many do not speak), we should not allow political correctness to stifle our passionate beliefs. We should not have to tow a party line, when our gut – our soul, is telling us not to. Real discussions have become too rare in our land, so, at least, let us start there…
Corporate feminism vs. Global Feminism? Is it our ages that divide us and our preferential candidates, and the democratic party?
Here is a very good article on the two, in context of the candidates:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/17542
I will not malign the other candidate, nor will I reduce this election, where our peace and prosperity are at risk by mandating a zero sum game. Which ever democrat who gains this nomination will be infinitely better than a 3rd term of George Bush.
Jodi P – Thanks for letting me know you read.
Sorry – all those exclamation points were really getting to me. I should have mentioned capitals too. Seriously – the Internet can be such an amazing tool – but some folks just get a little overzealous me thinks.
Anna Karenina – I agree with you 100%. And I am just positive there are more like us. I can understand if it’s too soon for some folks, but the anger – wow.
Anna Karenina, did you mean to cite the article from “The Nation” that was nothing more than a hatchet job on Clinton?
I have no problem with anyone who chooses to support Obama over Clinton based on their different positions on foreign policy. Woters who take a principled stance against Clinton because of her vote for the Iraq Resolution have my respect. I didn’t agree with her vote, either.
This article doesn’t do that. It blames Clinton for the racialization of this contest. That is simply not factual. The first instance of a supposed “racist” attack cited by Reed makes that clear. It related to the mention of Obama’s drug use by a Clinton supporter. Clearly, public interest in a political candidate’s prior drug use is not limited to black candidates. Naming it as such is indicative of the crass but very effective use of false charges of racism that have dominated the Obama campaign.
I’m not interested in taking the time to parse every instance presented in the article. I don’t view you as open to other interpretations.
Ironically, for an article that began with noting some of the sexist attacks on Clinton in the media and by unaffiliated individuals, Reed couldn’t be bothered to examine any of the gender based attacks on Clinton that originated in the Obama campaign.
She could have killed two birds with one stone if she had examined Jesse Jackson, Jr.’s, appearance on Hardball after Clinton displayed some emotion in NH. This national co-chair of Obama’s campaign insinuated that Clinton cried over her appearance but couldn’t be bothered to shed a tear over Katrina victims who were overwhelmingly black. He managed to belittle Clinton’s femininity and accuse her of being uncaring about black people at the same time.
BTW, AK, your claim that you won’t “malign the other candidate” rings hollow.
Jill, you may think that it’s “too soon”. I think you’re wrong. I think this split in the Democratic Party is real and lasting.
I meant that it may be too soon for folks to move on from anger, yes. I agree that the split is real and I believe that “lasting” is relative.
Have you heard about how in Australia they’ve started the What Women Want Party? There’s no reason why that couldn’t be done here. Whether or not it’s valuable in terms of moving forward in getting sexism eradicated from our society and placing more women in positions of power through our society, I don’t know.
But I put enormous faith in gropus like The White House Project because the women who started it, like Marie Wilson, are women who have lived the 50s, 60s, 70s , 80s and 90s and now. Marie was the director of the Ms. Foundation for nearly 20 years I believe and started the White House PRoject.
Women know how to multitask and that means how to move on multiple fronts at the same time to achieve their goals.
That’s what I imagine and that’s what I suport. I would not support some definitive split without fully evaluating the impact on achieving goals – and knowing what the goals wer.
Much of that kind of talk seems extremely vague and without real thought about what it would do, be and who it would benefit.
Not that that can’t be done – but given all the pure anger that’s being pushed right now, doesn’t even sound like the Clinton Supporters Count Too folks know what they want besides saying, Hillary or nothing.
I’m not, by nature, a separatist. I tend to think that national policies that are good for women are good for men, too. I think that we need a new political party but I’ve never seriously considered that a “woman-only” party could become a real force in this country where women don’t view themselves as needing to support one another to the exclusion of men. This primary competition has made that clear. If Democratic women had coalesced behind Clinton the way that black Democrats came together for Obama, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
I’m not sure that’s a bad thing. I want the best candidate for president, not the female candidate. That said, I don’t believe that the best candidate is necessarily the one who wins the nomination. I thought Edwards was the better candidate in 2004 but I worked for Kerry when he became the nominee.
For me, the only acceptable alternative to a Clinton nomination would be Al Gore. I’m aware that there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell of that happening but I can’t really offer you any help in making your candidate more appealing to voters like me. Some women may respond to the “but, sweetie, I didn’t mean to smack you around” tone that some in the Obama campaign have begun to display. I’m not one of them.
My feeling is…Hillary or nothing.
Thanks for that very honest comment, Tess.
Trust me – no one I know would say that Obama is “my” candidate – he really isn’t. For me, it’s going to be a matter of whomever is the Democratic party’s nominee.
But I do understand what you are saying and the way you are thinking about it. I imagine for some people, there won’t be a time when anything will “kick in” to make them decide to just go ahead and vote for someone other than Clinton. Given how many elections we get the chance to vote in, it would be crazy to think that none of us ever do that, even once – where we just pass.
I think maybe because this change in the guard could be so momentus, and because there’s a sense that the country as a whole is so divided, that Dem. nominee will need all the help he or she can get – Clinton would be no guarantee against McCain.
Anyway – look – if you feel even a little bit more understood, I feel better. I will vote and I will vote for the Democratic nominee. I will also continue to work toward there being as many women as possible in the pipeline and graduating out of it so that we have viable female candidates for president every four years.
I think we have to promise ourselves that we will keep trying.
Early in the campaign, I was wondering why more women were not standing up for Clinton. Well, maybe a little late – but here it is.
As far as Obama, I never liked what he stands for – far left liberalism. Solution is not to blindly vote Democrat – even if you don’t agree with what the candidate stands for and how he has lived the last 20 years of his life.
The implication here is wrong – vote Democrat no matter what – that is a serious insult to our intelligence and freedom to vote.
NO I CHOSE NOT TO BLINDLY VOTE FOR SOMEONE I CANNOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT.
What is wrong with that reasoning – vote Democrat – even if you do not agree with the far left doctrine. OMG
Whoever put this blog up needs to find solutions for their faulty reasoning. Just placate the Clinton Supporters they will come around. YOU DON’T GET IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, by the way, I can’t get the vision of Obama flipping Sen. Clinton (former first lady) the finger – not once but twice – then brushing his shoulder off (like his favorite rap song) Trash!!!!!!!!!
You Obama people make me sick.
[edited out for thread of violence and vulgarity.
If you haven't checked lately, Hillary Clinton LEADS in the popular vote and against McCain where your washington-politics-as-usual-good'oleboy doesn't even come close.
There is no pulling the wool over our eyes, no making nice with us, no "they will vote the party" in the end. Since you seem to think yourselves so smart [edited out for name-calling] you can figure out another way to get your unelectable candidate elected WITHOUT our help.
WE HAVE HAD IT WITH ALL OF YOU.
Millions, count them; MILLIONS of Hillary Clinton (former FIRST LADY and current SENATOR OF THE UNITED STATES) supporters – young, old, men, women, gay, straight, black, and yes, even white (or maybe you’ll want to pull the race card at us AGAIN) – will NEVER vote for your [edited out for name-calling] candidate who is trying like hell to steal the race [edited out].
I have never witnessed such ugliness, hatred for women and blatant disrespect in an election from a Democratic candidate and HIS supporters such as I’ve seen from you [edited out for name-calling].
I can’t wait to see you lose![too many exclamations points]
I see, it’s the black or the woman and that’s a problem so let’s vote for the old white guy Bushclone?
It is real evident that the Democratic Party’s entire mistake was allowing an uppity negroe and woman who didn’t know her place to run at all. It would have avoided the entire problem to have just run an old white guy since the rest of you aren’t grown up enough to be allowed access to a ballot or a candidate.
If you want to make the Democratic Part pay, that’s your business, but you might stop to think that Hillary and women candidates will take the blame and the fall. Hillary will be done in Democratic Politics forever, there’s no 2012, there’s no Senate career, she’ll vanish into obscurity in the Senate. If you want to play hardball you had best realize who it is that has the bat and who it is that’s scorekeeper and who is pitching.
The game is rigged if you go that way. Your little protest vote can cost the election, absolutely. Along with the costs to all the things you claim to hold dear there is the added cost of proving that having a woman in an important Primary is a mistake if she can’t win – by the rules. You will have proved that engaging with you is dangerous and of no lasting value. Many male candidates have lost elections standing up for women, it is one of the Republicans favorite attacks and could have been avoided by leaving women to their own devices. None of this counts now that Hillary made the ballot. You prove how valueless you are as allies in a struggle for women. The Democratic Party, in almost all campaigns, has stood up for women to their great cost. The very words Pro-choice are electoral poison in a lot of races but it gets done anyhow.
You think a Democratic Congress can stop a McCain war? He’ll leave the troops in the field and dare Congress to starve them, just like BushCo has – and they’ll have to fold to protect the troops. That’s right, to keep them from running out of ammunition, fuel, and food they’ll have to keep the damn war going. The Supreme Court is a lifetime position, the loon BushCos aren’t old and McCain won’t put old farts in either. Congress has to approve is true, but Congress doesn’t get to pick.
Well, you can express your displeasure by throwing the dishes but there won’t be anything to eat on and nobody to get new ones.
Throwing rocks at the Democratic Party won’t help if you didn’t like what Chris Matthews (or others)had to say, tell MSNBC and their sponsors. Didn’t like an op-ed, tell the paper along with your cancellation. Don’t like what happened in FL/MI? Remove the exectutive board of the State Parties – you may not know it, that is the top of the responsibility chain for what happened. Not DNC which can only punish, not the candidates who have NO legal standing. Nope, the State Party Chair and Vice-chairs. But you didn’t bother to find out, you just took Hillary’s word. Yes, I do know, I work in that piece of the puzzle, I have to know this stuff. At some point, some of the media actually told you, but it isn’t a 30 second sound bite and isn’t flashy news.
The final authority on how to run a State Primary rests with the State Party as long as it is inside DNC rules. The State government can offer to finance an election and set conditions on financing it, but it is the choice of the State Party to accept or refuse the State’s offer. Hillary is no hero, her DNC representatives on the Rules Committee 100% voted for the 100% sanctions on MI & FL. Hers did, all of them. She didn’t want those votes until she needed them. Verifiable facts. Hillary disenfrachised those voters if playing by the rules counts as that. Obama didn’t stop the re-votes, the States did, that was the problem he mentioned – like it is illegal. They could have self-financed caucuses but Hillary hates caucuses – but that was LEGAL.
ah well you want your tantrum and facts don’t mean spit. Lanny Davis with his “proposal” voted as Hillary’s rep for 100% sanctions. You want to throw an election to a Republican without even knowing what it is you’re mad about or who did it to you. Pathetic
Interesting editing going on here, Jill. You object to a poster referring to Michelle Obama as “pretty fluffly little wife” and the use of multiple exclamation points but Chuck can say that we’re not “grown up , enough to be allowed to access a ballot”, that we’re throwing a tantrum and that we’re thowing out the “dishes”, a bizarre reference that may make sense to Obama supporters but it not clear to me. I may be wrong but I think he’s making a “women are responsible for the dishes” argument.
Chuck, your back-to-back comments were filled with insults, assumptions and threats.
My personal favorite was the implication that women will never again be allowed to stand for election in the Democratic Party. After all, in your words, we’ve proven that “engaging with (us) is dangerous and of no lasting value”.
Apparently, you think that we should reward Obama with our vote because some men have supported choice in the past. That’s very true. What you ignored in your rant is that women have supported equal rights for people of color in the past.
I, for one, did not expect to be told to take their place at the back of the bus.
It’s a rough job but somebody’s gotta do it. When’s the last time you had a blog thread go 86 comments from wildly opposite ends of the spectrum, in an attempt to get people to listen to one another, while trying to tamp down the excess?
Is this an unusual number of responses?
I post on a few news and magazine sites but they’re rarely moderated for anything but cursing or porn, if that. I haven’t visited many blog sites.
It’s pretty clear that tempers are still running high.
Thanks for asking that, Tess.
Yes – for a one-person authored blog with as low traffic as mine, 86 is almost monumental. More typically, I’d say I average 6-15 or something in there, maybe 10-20. And half will be mine! Because I do engage – that’s why I do it.
But you are partially right and I want to be fair: there have been three or four thread in the last couple of weeks that have been very difficult to edit because people are passionate and to decide what’s truly violative and hurtful is in the end up to me. So, I don’t want to totally dismiss the sense on your part that it’s kind of at my whim, but, well, it kind of is only because, I’m it. There’s no corporate owner, I make no money, have no ads, nothing. Just me and what I want this blog to represent.
I personally have a real thing against name-calling but some of these few posts just got away from me before I could really insert myself.
To the extent that it feels overly subjective, I do apologize. But to the extent that it’s got my name on it, you know?
Thanks again for asking.
The name-calling has gotten out of hand everywhere. I’m guilty of it as well. I called Bush “Shrub” for months. I thought it was clever, an homage to Molly Ivins, even.
I’m disgusted by the name games played with both Democratic candidates, though, so I suppose I’m paying the piper, now. I’ve gone back to referring to Bush as Bush.
I recognize that this is your territory and I think it’s gone really well for the most part. I just found Chuck’s comment offensive on so many levels. Being compared to children is a hot-button reference for many of the women that I know. I had to have a man co-sign for my first charge card and my first car, even though I was earning the money and paying the bills. I have been treated, literally, as a child during my adulthood and I’m not even old enough for Medicare. To have young Obama supporters attack women in this manner just makes his campaign seem all the more clueless about our history and concerns and disinterested in our support if it comes with the proviso that we be treated with respect.
I do thank you for your efforts.
At least online, I don’t think the supporters of either campaign do a very good job of representing the values of their candidates. On sites like The Huffington Post or Taylor Marsh there are dozens of senselessly divisive comments for every thoughtful one. I try to disregard the divisive commenters as it’s pretty unlikely that they’re the policy-makers for their respective campaigns.
Tess
Childish behavior = woman in your reading of what I wrote? Find where I said that. You assume. Certainly I engaged in some exaggeration to get your attention.
You find my statements sexist, considering I am addressing a general audience, how’s that work?
If you’ve watched a political campaign from the same perspective it is no wonder you’ve come to the conclusions you have. A lot of the stupid sexist products are for sale on rightwing/Republican sites and you blame Democrats for it. You have an idea that the only people attacking Hillary are Democrats?
Jill would have trashed my entire post if she had read it the way you do. Your real problem is that you will not find anything I’ve ever written that was not solidly in line with equal rights and respect for all, men, women, LGBT, races, economic classes. Not once, not ever because I don’t think that way. In a 3 month period I traveled 5,000 miles making that case. Most of the money spent was contributions but the economic damage to me was huge, it took a year to recover. Your little protest vote stacks up against that as what?
Breaking things in a tantrum means you won’t have them again. I used a jokey sitcom reference of two adults throwing dishes in a fight.
People really need to sit down and look closely at what is said and what they hear. That includes Hillary’s so-called racism and Obama’s so-called sexism.
I have no idea what you’re on about in regard to support of race. If Obama is the nominee what does that have to do with anything? Yes, the Democratic Party has stood strong on race as well as gender. This is what you propose to break because a candidate didn’t make it this time. You seem to have a view of this race as man v woman, it could as easily be black v establishment, or pick any number of other simplistic views that don’t cover it.
Other than a handful of people who probably would not vote Democratic this has not been about anti-gender or anti-race.
Candidate run and they lose, sometimes they run poor campaigns, sometimes they aren’t good candidates, and sometimes the opponent is narrowly more appealing.
Ok – I agree with that pull-quote from P Springer in #91 re: the ardent supporters on both sides have gone over the edge several times too many. If you want to see what I consider to be an excellent statement of support for a candidate with facts and passion but not name-calling and insults, check out this post.
Chuck –
I am going to disagree with you – I believe there has been racism and sexism in the the candidates’ campaigns, but I don’t believe there should be a hierarchy of oppression. I wish Clinton had done for sexism what Obama did for racism, but I wish that Obama wouldn’t pretend that calling a reporter “Sweetie” and then not answering her question isn’t sexist – no matter how subtle. It is. End of story.
Likewise, Clinton has made similarly subtle but still racist intimations.
These isms are ingrained and when we get lazy, tired and overzealous, even people who in general are not racist (Clinton) and are not sexist (Obama), slip into bad habits or whatever you want to call them.
To say it hasn’t existed is as bad as saying she is a “monster” or he is a “messiah.”
Well, minus the popular vote mantra, it is a pretty good pro-Hillary post. Hillary may or may not have a popular vote lead after 6/3 as long as all caucuses are discounted. At this time she can get that number by dismissing caucuses and counting MI all as hers and 0 for Obama, an odd metric for “count all votes.” This is politics and numbers get chosen for political reasons, not factual reasons – either candidate.
That was good read. It’s refreshing to see someone who holds their candidate in high esteem without feeling the need to demonize their opponents.
Perhaps I wasn’t careful enough with my language, though I think if you look I didn’t state none happened, I said it hasn’t been “about” those issues.
If I percieved this race to have been based on gender or race I’d be climbing somebodies’ backs like a mountain lion. People basing their votes on that isn’t something the campaigns can do much about other than to not appeal to it. There’s been too much of it, even in the small amounts that have occured. BYW, “sweetie” to a reporter isn’t “sweetie” to Hillary. If it was someone I was familiar with I might say “dear” to a woman and “bud” to a male.
People speaking off the cuff make statements that reflect part of their thinking but don’t get all of it out. Hillary thinking about demographics makes a demographic statement without finishing all the thought, and boy it stinks. Obama makes a “bitter” comment without the rest of the thinking and boy does it stink. You are not going to get perfect.
Odd choice of words on your part,
she is a “monster” or he is a “messiah.
Do you think I ought to recognize the intent or take the statement at face value which is she’s attacked & he’s lionized?
We’re friends in a discussion; they’re opponents; and yet – words reflecting most of a thought rather than all of it – that both have had the same nonsense, lay there. I choose to understand. If I were a political opponent of your’s desiring votes against you getting them I might beat you about the head and shoulders with it. Or maybe I’d just nick you, just enough to get the voters to do the dirty work.
We’re not opponents in any real sense of the word. I argue strenuously against the idea McCain=Hillary.
Neither of those candidates has let the other just slide.
The author of that post has been a campaign manager for candidates who are women, so there may be some different tone and approach too, as a result of what he’s witnessed women candidates can be subjected to, so he tries maybe to keep it to what’s relevant to look at as opposed to what’s lazy and easy to slip into, if you know what I mean.
As a candidate in a very red Congressional District I can assure you I know exactly what you mean.
Chuck, you came onto a blog that is about WOMEN who are so incensed at the sexism in this campaign that they’ve taken a stand. Then you compare those people to children. Oh yes, I read that as sexist.
Maybe Jill didn’t trash your post because she agrees with it. The fact that another woman does not see sexism or does not acknowledge sexism does not mean that the sexism does not exist.
As to my position on racism, I’ve lost one job and two promotions because my companions in my work life and my private life were often black. I’ve been called a n*gger lover. I’ve also had black women threaten me because they were angry that I was dating a black man.
I’ve witnessed the below-the-radar racism in the white community.
A black friend told me, more than thirty years ago, that the fight for equal rights for blacks had to take precedence over the fight for equal rights for women. I didn’t agree with him then and I don’t agree now. I’ve managed to stand up for both for many years. So has Hillary.
The real question is why couldn’t Obama do that? When he characterized Hillary’s remark about LBJ as “unfortunate” and allowed his campaign staff and the media to rip her apart, he lost me. A woman with a four decade history of working for civil rights was demolisheded in a moment when she made a statement that was in no way racist or, in truth, racially insensitive. If someone like Hillary can’t talk about MLK, Jr., in an historically accurate way without being demonized by blacks and liberals, who can?
There were going to be elements of racism and sexism in this campaign. The real test was how it was handled by the candidates. Hillary has played the cards she was given but Obama was the dealer.
Jesse Jackson, Jr., said that Hillary cried over her “appearance” but didn’t shed a tear for the blacks who suffered in Katrina. Well, I cried plenty for the people in NO and I also understood completely why Hillary was moved when someone showed her a moment of kindness and understanding.
Jesse Jackson, Jr., is still the national co-chair of Obama’s campaign.
Leading Democrats have been silent on the sexism in this race. Donna Brazile allowed Hillary to be called a “white bitch” without comment on CNN. This is the woman who was one of the first and loudest mouths on cable who misrepresented Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” remark as racist.
Don’t worry, I intend to vote for any down-ticket Democrats who haven’t participated in this modern-day witch hunt.
Barack Obama will never get my vote.
Tess, just for the record, I’ve largely stayed out of trashing anyone’s post because I haven’t seen that as my role in most of the comments – most of these comments are between the commenters, which is great.
My position has always been that racism and sexism figure into this year’s primary, that both campaigns have plenty about which they could have done more and that there is no hierarchy of oppression. Now, at this point, and in fact a long time ago though I can’t pinpoint when, the campaigns and primarily their supporters jumped the shark and cutoff real, objective debate about the merits of the candidates and instead insist on fighting tit for tat.
And I won’t go there. First of all, I just don’t like either candidate enough. I just don’t and I never have.
Second of all, I know I’m going to vote for the Dem nominee.
And third of all, I don’t believe that either of them have been any measure better or worse than any other candidates in recent memory. We can find flaws and faults with them all depending on how we look.
So let the people who make decisions make decisions and please, let it be Aug. 29 sooner rather than later.
I believe that that was a week after Bill’s “Fairy Tale” comment.
This is the problem with negative attacks. When you mock your opponent, their supporters take it personally and go for payback. With each iteration the payback escalates. In this cycle the problem is compounded by the fact that many supporters have a particularly high level of identification with their candidates.
I’m also going to vote for the dem nominee.
Exactly!
“Chuck, you came onto a blog that is about WOMEN who are so incensed at the sexism in this campaign that they’ve taken a stand. Then you compare those people to children. Oh yes, I read that as sexist.”
Oh now, I call bullhockey, the title and writing are not gender specific. YOU decided this was a man v woman debate. If that is what it is, I’m sorry I ever typed a single word because I wouldn’t waste 5 seconds on it. Rest assured, I am more than done with this.
I don’t think that’s a fair characterization of her position on the matter. Here is a quote from Brazile during the “white b****” discussion:
BRAZILE: Alex has a problem with this woman. But, clearly, I don’t think that’s the issue. I think Senator Clinton has been able to break so many barriers. But at the same time, she has faced some unique handles and a double standard…
To furher clarify her position regarding sexism, she had just finished saying the following when they brought up the “white b****” comment.
BRAZILE: Well, as a black and a woman, I’ve seen them both, Wolf. And, yes, there’s undercurrents of racism and sexism in every presidential campaign. And, clearly, in this historic election season, with two unconventional candidates, we’ve seen subtle forms of racism as well as sexism.
But I don’t think that that defines Senator Clinton’s candidacy, nor Senator Obama’s. They have been two exceptional candidates. That’s why they’re in the finals. They’re in the finals because they are the very best. And I think to blame their standing right now in the polls among delegates on racism or sexism will not give credit to the American people, who have put these two unique human beings in the position of becoming the next president of the United States.
Alright: from here on out, I’m editing out B**** – it’s enough already. I used it in a very specific way in a title to make a point about something a commentator said.
But now you’re just bandying it about – please – email each other if you want to keep debating that word.
I apologize if that feels unfair, but I dislike seeing that word over and over.
I watched the interview when it occurred and I just watched it again at Media Matters.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200805210002
Jill,
Your blog, your rules. I don’t like the word, either, which is why I was so upset that Donna Brazile failed to challenge it’s use when it was applied to Clinton.
P. Springer,
Jeffrey Toobin referenced an article where Hillary Clinton had been referred to as stated above and made the point that he didn’t feel that an equivalent comment about a black person would have been considered acceptable.
Alex Castellanos said that it was okay to use that language about Hillary Clinton because it accurately described her. Toobin’s body language signaled disgust. Donna Brazile sat there stone-faced and silent while Castellanos continued to attack Clinton.
At no time did she say to Castellanos, anything along the lines of “it’s inappropriate to use that language to describe any woman including Hillary Clinton”. She did not even reference Castellanos’ statement until Jeffrey Toobin commented on it. Then, the best she could come up with was “Alex has a problem with this woman” as if he hadn’t disrespected all women with his remark.
This is the same person who displayed obvious anger at Bill Clinton and characterized his non-racial “fairy tale” comment as a racial slur. If Castellanos had said that Obama was “uppity”, she would’ve have demolished him.
She’s so far in the tank for Obama that she needs scuba gear. She’s in the DNC group who wants to convince the uncommitted superdelegates that Obama’s electability is not impacted by racism and that Clinton’s second-place status hasn’t been impacted by the overt sexism that has been displayed by so many journalists, pundits and others who are supporting Obama.
She didn’t address the larger issue of Castellano’s sexism because she would have needed to defend Clinton to do it. She’s not going to defend Clinton because, despite her nominal undeclared status, she supports Obama.
Chuck,
What do you think sexism is? Do you honestly think that the women who are the subject of this blog are just angry because it appears that their candidate isn’t going to win the nomination? Do you think that these women haven’t backed candidates who have lost before? Did they start a protest movement or leave the Party en masse, then?
Denying that there’s an issue is one way to address an issue. I don’t think that it’s going to help Obama win the general election but it appears to be the approach taken by his campaign thus far.
For the record, Tess, I agree with you about Brazille’s anemic response. I really cannot understand that other than for someone to then say to her that she’s getting selectively outraged and not railing enough at Obama for missteps.
But I have to say, I’m kind of deaf to a lot of this now. It just doesn’t reflect reality anymore you know – it’s a real sideshow.