« Hillary the Liberal Lioness (?) vs Obama the Visionary | katjam's Blog | Obama: help retire Hillary's debt »
Hillary's hubris is what defeated her not some conspiracy against women.
I just read yet another report about an angry Hillary supporter who has vowed to vote for McCain in November. She, like others, has conflated Hillary's impending loss with a personal loss as well as a universal loss for women in general. Obama has become to her a veritable composite of everything that must have frustrated her in life. Maybe it was an unfair boss, a denial of promotion, some demeaning treatment, or maybe he has simply come to represent to her a general dismissal of women as being less valuable, of being passed over for a job they had earned. She sees in Hillary an enormously capable woman deserving of the presidency who has been sandbagged by---to use Hillary supporters' favorite phrase---an empty suit. To worsen his offense he is seen as being assisted in this crime against women by the MSM. And so she plans to vote for McCain.
This is the answer? McCain? Four more years of Republicans undermining the gains women have made in the last four decades? A conservative SCOTUS for decades to come? Privacy rights lost? As a sixty-year-old woman my sadness at not seeing a women president is turning into anger--at women!
I was excited as anyone with the prospect of America having its first woman president. I admired Hillary's hard work and determination as she came out of the shadow of Bill's disgrace into the limelight of her own success. I was thrilled by Obama inspirational message but never considered he could possibly surpass such a powerhouse as Hillary with her credentials, money, and institutional backing. Apparently neither did she or her staff.
Hillary's hubris is what defeated her not some conspiracy against women. She dismissed a fifty-state strategy figuring she would just roll with the old Democratic plan making sure she didn't lose in FL or OH. Hillary never considered anyone could build a delegate lead out of smaller states. She blew her wad by February just as Obama blew by her. Thrown, she went on the offensive but without an effective plan. A little of this, a little of that, and she finally emerged as the populist defender of the downtrodden. But it was too late. In her struggle to regain the lead she opened Pandora's box. Toxicity emerged.
Every identity group has grievances. Politicians tap into these to build their campaigns but they do so at their country's peril because they give permission for these groups to act out their anger. Hillary chose to tap into women's frustrations (as well as blue-collar resentment). Women in turn and in great numbers began fueling her campaign. But Hillary failed them. She had lost the lead by an ineffective campaign and could not catch up even with huge wins in the later primaries. With their anger now aroused however and their indignity inflamed, these women who are about to be handed a loss, a loss that seems all the greater because of the promise Hillary represented, these followers are now out of control. She failed them but they will punish Obama.
Hillary supporters please understand Obama did not cheat. He has run an incredibly effective grassroots campaign. The MSM may like him but they did not help him. Instead they pounded him with the Wright video and the "bitter" comments for days leading up to critical primaries. At the same time Hillary was throwing the kitchen sink at him and McCain was on the attack as well. It was her poorly run campaign alone that allowed him to create his insurmountable lead against her.
My anger is at Hillary. She may indeed be the stronger candidate. She may indeed have a better chance against McCain in November. But if true her poorly run primary is a tragedy for every Democrat and I am angry that for all her skills and political savvy she lost control of the primary and thus maybe lost the White House for us as well. Blame Hillary. Do not take out your frustration on Obama.
Vote for MCCAIN?!!! I'm sorry but if that is how you plan to vent your frustration at Hillary losing this for you you have roused MY anger. You are working against MY interests because you are working against the interests of women in general and you are working against Democratic interests as well. By acting emotional and irrational you are also reenforcing the worse stereotypes of women.
You can continue to be incensed by perceived slights like Obama's innocent "sweetie" comment but if reports are true McCain has been heard calling his own wife something so sexistly vulgar I will not repeat it. His own wife. So much for women in general. Obama not only believes in and supports women's rights, he is married to and holds in great respect a dynamic woman who herself has fought against the odds by being both black and a woman.
Vote for MCCAIN? Calm down and think this one through carefully. Are you really for women's interests? Do you really want to move away from the Bush years or is defeat Obama and electing McCain the only shortsighted self-defeating goal that sates your present disappointment and anger?
This is the answer? McCain? Four more years of Republicans undermining the gains women have made in the last four decades? A conservative SCOTUS for decades to come? Privacy rights lost? As a sixty-year-old woman my sadness at not seeing a women president is turning into anger--at women!
I was excited as anyone with the prospect of America having its first woman president. I admired Hillary's hard work and determination as she came out of the shadow of Bill's disgrace into the limelight of her own success. I was thrilled by Obama inspirational message but never considered he could possibly surpass such a powerhouse as Hillary with her credentials, money, and institutional backing. Apparently neither did she or her staff.
Hillary's hubris is what defeated her not some conspiracy against women. She dismissed a fifty-state strategy figuring she would just roll with the old Democratic plan making sure she didn't lose in FL or OH. Hillary never considered anyone could build a delegate lead out of smaller states. She blew her wad by February just as Obama blew by her. Thrown, she went on the offensive but without an effective plan. A little of this, a little of that, and she finally emerged as the populist defender of the downtrodden. But it was too late. In her struggle to regain the lead she opened Pandora's box. Toxicity emerged.
Every identity group has grievances. Politicians tap into these to build their campaigns but they do so at their country's peril because they give permission for these groups to act out their anger. Hillary chose to tap into women's frustrations (as well as blue-collar resentment). Women in turn and in great numbers began fueling her campaign. But Hillary failed them. She had lost the lead by an ineffective campaign and could not catch up even with huge wins in the later primaries. With their anger now aroused however and their indignity inflamed, these women who are about to be handed a loss, a loss that seems all the greater because of the promise Hillary represented, these followers are now out of control. She failed them but they will punish Obama.
Hillary supporters please understand Obama did not cheat. He has run an incredibly effective grassroots campaign. The MSM may like him but they did not help him. Instead they pounded him with the Wright video and the "bitter" comments for days leading up to critical primaries. At the same time Hillary was throwing the kitchen sink at him and McCain was on the attack as well. It was her poorly run campaign alone that allowed him to create his insurmountable lead against her.
My anger is at Hillary. She may indeed be the stronger candidate. She may indeed have a better chance against McCain in November. But if true her poorly run primary is a tragedy for every Democrat and I am angry that for all her skills and political savvy she lost control of the primary and thus maybe lost the White House for us as well. Blame Hillary. Do not take out your frustration on Obama.
Vote for MCCAIN?!!! I'm sorry but if that is how you plan to vent your frustration at Hillary losing this for you you have roused MY anger. You are working against MY interests because you are working against the interests of women in general and you are working against Democratic interests as well. By acting emotional and irrational you are also reenforcing the worse stereotypes of women.
You can continue to be incensed by perceived slights like Obama's innocent "sweetie" comment but if reports are true McCain has been heard calling his own wife something so sexistly vulgar I will not repeat it. His own wife. So much for women in general. Obama not only believes in and supports women's rights, he is married to and holds in great respect a dynamic woman who herself has fought against the odds by being both black and a woman.
Vote for MCCAIN? Calm down and think this one through carefully. Are you really for women's interests? Do you really want to move away from the Bush years or is defeat Obama and electing McCain the only shortsighted self-defeating goal that sates your present disappointment and anger?
Advertisement
Great post, thank you! You've put into words a lot of the things I've been thinking. As a feminist I'm apalled at how Hillary has divided women.
June 3, 2008 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you support psychobabble poised as analysis? Go read Daily Howler from January 2007 and see whether Obama "came out of nowhere". He's been on the map since his speech at the Convention in 2004, and by early last year he was running almost even with the leaders.
And that's just one of the facts she gets wrong in attempting to dissect (read: libel) the campaign. Maybe the reason you're offended as a feminist is because you got taken for a ride?
June 4, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton had everything--EVERYTHING--going for her at the outset of this nomination process, except perhaps the right positions on the issues that matter. Sure, she had the Clinton baggage, but she also had the Clinton nostalgia (God knows the '90s look like a utopian fantasyland compared to the Bush years).
Her gender, I think, also helped her--a lot of people, including me, were intrigued by the idea of a female president even though we disagreed with HRC's positions on a lot of issues.
Ultimately, however, a poorly-run campaign highlighted the indefensibility of her DLC leanings, and Obama's well-run campaign and appealing platform was there to provide a very palatable alternative.
I don't want another president who runs around threatening to nuke countries into oblivion--it's as simple as that. I'm disappointed that we won't have a female president, but the blame for her defeat lies squarely on her political views and campaign mismanagement, not her gender.
June 3, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
p, your obvious hate for Hillary Clinton and women in general comes through loud and clear. You cannot even in Victory allow anything good to come from Hillary. That to me is the most telling thing about most Obama supporters. Their absolute HATE of Hillary or anything that might have to do with the Womens movement. Day after day for months now I have come here and seen nothing but the bombardment of Hillary and women from all quarters here. One would have thought that it would have slowed a little. Yet, its picked up steam. I truely believe that Obama supporters will not be happy until she is truely destroyed. I just wish they would admit it. So, P, have some courage and really go ahead and say it. You want her destroyed. You HATE her and everything she stands for. You actually don't want a woman as President. You don't now or ever will. Be honest for once. Stop hiding behind your faux reasoning on why you couldn't vote for her. You were never going to! Your disgusting in your display of hatred for Hillary and all women.
June 3, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
You cannot generalize about Obama supporters in that way. I don't hate HRC, and obviously I don't hate women or the women's movement. I have dreamed of a woman POTUS--I used to want to be the first woman POTUS myself!
But I support Obama because HRC has positions on the issues that are deal-breakers for me (Kyl-Lieberman, Iran, Iraq, etc.). I would have overlooked those issues versus John McCain, and I would have been happy in a general sense to have a female President, but to be perfectly frank, if HRC were not a woman, she'd never have been on my political radar to begin with because of her DLC leanings.
I do not want to see HRC "destroyed," although I do want to see the DLC's grip on the Democratic Party destroyed. It's not like HRC is being tossed into oblivion anyway--she's a powerful and successful Senator from a very large state.
June 3, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure you do. Dont' hide from your HATE embrace it. You don't think women can be in positions of power and will attack any woman that tries to get there. Look at Arianna Huffington. You would have thought she would have been for Hillary.....but no...
June 3, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
A) I am not the diarist.
B) I am a woman.
C) I vote based on principle and not based on anatomy.
D) Gender cannot possibly outweigh concerns about "nuking Iran into oblivion," inter alia.
June 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Or invading Pakistan you mean?
June 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obliterating Iran" is not the same as "invading Pakistan," when the latter was specifically about going in based on intelligence reports, and surgically taking out Osama BinLadin.
How are they the same? Which one should we have done 3 yeaars ago?
June 3, 2008 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Neither, I was not for either war. Waste of good men and women for what? Each excercise was an effort in futility.
June 3, 2008 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was responding to your comment comparing "Obliterating Iran" --> Hillary, to "Invading Pakistan" --> Obama made a reference to this regarding actionable intelligence about the whereabouts of BinLadin.
Now you seem to mean that you weren't for either war: Iraq or Afghanistan? What do you mean?
June 3, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly that. I disagree with my favorite Candidate on those issues. I thought it was a waste of time for us to try and influence militarily either Country. And, history will prove me right. Our childrens, wives, husbands, lives would have better spent doing something vastly different than running around Iraq and Afghanistan.
June 3, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are obviously not even a Clinton supporter. You are a Limbaugh-inspired troll. Now fuck off.
June 3, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not? Why do the signs in my yard, pamphlets in my office and checkbook say otherwise? Try speaking of something you know about.
June 3, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For what it's worth Louisville, I'd like to see her destroyed.
This is why. If you can defend these actions then you might just win some support:
She has tried to project herself as some crusader for the right of every vote to count, except for those who didn't vote because they were led (specifically by her) to believe their votes wouldn't count.
She's claimed things like "I'm winning the popular vote" even though that leaves out 4 states who didn't take a count of actual voters in this record high turnout election, all of which Obama won.
Her surrogates are now going into sexism as a reason for her loss, a claim any woman should be ashamed to hear. Gender baiting at its worst.
She's taken money from all sorts of lobbyists (including being the second highest paid by health care industry interests) when she's claiming to be dead set against them for her Healthcare plan.
She's claiming b.s. like "if we had the REPUBLICAN system I'd already be the nominee" when winner take all is atrocious for democracy and proportional representation really is the way we should be going so that, as Clinton has put it "every vote counts".
Anyway, if you are a Clinton supporter, give it up, it's not about women and their rights and to go on in that vein does a disservice to the women who fought the actual fights against sexism. And if you can only take identity politics into consideration, I'll tell you, I'm not against women because I am one. But since I don't vote with my vagina it's rarely an issue in deciding who I'll support.
This election has really helped to expose those who aren't serving the democratic party well (not that every Clinton supporter isn't) and I'm so glad Obama is able to harness that in the democratic party. I'm thinking we can be so much of what we were hoping to be when many of our representative acted decietfully or against our interests.
Clinton has played by these broken rules, and I'd love nothing more than to see her go down for it.
June 3, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
IMO she is destroyed, and not by the media, not by men, but by her own psychological problems and by running her campaign not based on competence but on presumption and arrogance. Heraklitus said, "Character is fate."
I am loving it, and that's the truth.
June 3, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So everyone who doesn't want Hillary Clinton to be the next President of the United States, "HATES WOMEN."
Brilliant. Can I deduce that everyone who doesn't want Obama (like you, for example) to be President, must obviously, "HATE BLACK PEOPLE?"
or maybe you just "HATE TALL, THIN PEOPLE."
or maybe you just "HATE PEOPLE WHO MAKE SENSE."
Everyone who doesn't want McCain to be President, we can assume, "HATES OLD PEOPLE."
June 3, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or maybe we don't want McCain because we HATE EX-POW's.
Wow, the list could go on if only you are simple-minded enough to categorize people and then say everyone who has a different opinion from you must HATE everyone.
As to this comment from you downstream:
...well, you ought to know!and here:
...um, are you dense, or a hypocrite, or both? You started it, Dude!June 3, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess Arianna Huffington hates women too. Gee, who'd have thunk it?
Who else hates women? Oh, that's right. Everyone who doesn't want Hillary to be the next President. It is so easy to forget that because it is so insanely childish and silly!
June 3, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, take a pill. "so much anger from someone so young" if you watch Tank's responses to Clinton supporters that is usually his line. I stole it for humor reasons figuring he would get the....irony. Obviously lost on you.
If you've read what P has written over the months the amount of hate she has written about Hillary is palpable. If you can't or won't see that it isn't my problem.
And, How many times has one the Obamaistas labeled a Hillary supporter as racist? You have yourself done it. So, who is the hypcrite? You have characterized Hillary and her supporters every day here. It is fine. It is your right to do so. But please spare me the fake indignation. It is quite obvious from your reaction that you do indeed HATE her. It is just hard for you to just come out and say it. I am just telling you to go ahead.
Sure, I started it. Now go ahead and end it by saying what you really deep down feel. Go on, you know you want to. You HATE Hillary....
June 3, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up.
June 3, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never, If I did then I might become like you.
June 3, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much bitterness for one so young.
June 4, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just that easy for you, isn't it? There's no possible reason why anyone would dislike Hillery other than her gender, therefore, if someone doesn't like Hillery, that person hates all women.
Insane troll logic at its finest.
June 3, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey genius did you bother reading exactly what was written by P today and other days. It is pretty clear to anyone with half a brain.
June 3, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is pretty clear to anyone with half a brain.
You would certainly be qualified to speak authoritatively about folks with half a brain.
Your rant is wrong -- not simply incorrect, wrong -- in both directions. Most of the people who support Sen. Obama don't hate Sen. Clinton. And many of the people who "hate" (inaccurate word, BTW. "Find her unacceptable" would be more to the point) Sen. Clinton are not particularly enamored of Sen. Obama. I can vouch for this latter point because I am one of them.
No one despises a politician as much as a former fan and defender who has been betrayed by her. Sen. Clinton has betrayed me, which is why I will never support anything she attempts to do. She has betrayed you, as well. You are simply not capable of perceiving it.
June 3, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
So much anger for someone so young
June 3, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No anger, just fact. As Eddie Heyman said, blame it on my youth.
June 4, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually it is the hate she is generating that I hate.
Were she to conceded graciously tonight and tell her supporters to get behind the winner( if Obama hits the 2118) I would be all for giving her a key job in the new administration. Heck I would support Obama assisting in putting to bed her $20-40 million (?) debt she has racked up but reports today say she will not. SHe plans to keep making her case and trying to steal delegates all the way to the convention. This is a woman you admire? You want someone so fixated on winning for Hillary and Hillary alone-- Democrats be damned? She is going to be working against Democratic interests and by that aiding McCain. I should be delighted with her????? Come on.
June 3, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only can you not generalize about Obama supporters to that extent, but what's this about "hate of [...] anything that might have to do with the Womens movement" and "bombardment of [...] women"?
Could you please be more specific? Ferraro made some similar claim about Obama's rampant sexism, but was unable to back it up.
Most of what I have read in TPM comment sections regarding Hillary is anger and frustration about the way Hillary has chosen to campaign, from her semi-endorsement of McCain over Obama (crossed the commander-in-chief threshold, "Obama has a speech he gave in 2002), via "not a Muslim as far as I know", to her current dishonest and selective math regarding the popular vote. Hillary supporters like to sweep her behavior under the rug and instead blame some nebulous sexism and misogyny, but Hillary has to take responsibility for her actions at some point.
June 3, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't read a lot here then. Take a spin around the ole TPM......You will see outright hate for Hillary Clinton or any woman ....or for that matter Man that get in way of Obama.
June 3, 2008 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean that everyone who hates Obama hates all blacks?
By this logic, the fact that my girlfriend hates Russell Crowe means that I'm in trouble, because she obviously hates all men. Maybe I'll dodge a bullet, because it could just be that she hates Austrailians.
On the other hand, my mom really hates Hitler, so that probably means that she hates all people with dark hair. Ergo, she hates me. Why does she hate me so?
And it gets worse. My co-worker hates the snails that eat the lettuce in her garden. By the above logic, she hates all things that metabolize, so she hates me. On the bright side, this also means that she hates lettuce too.
In all seriousness, it galls me when [some] Hillary supporters go on with this fanatical generalization that anyone who hates Hillary necessarily hates ALL WOMEN. I think that despite her many good qualities, Hillary has done a great disservice to our party and our nation in many instances, and my distaste for her is completely without regard to her gender, color, religion, or bowling average.
So let's think before we write, hmmm?
June 3, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd take your own advice. Your not thinking much when your writing.
June 3, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was anti-Hillary long before I'd heard of Obama and I am a 57 year old white woman. I oppose her because of her stands on Iraq and Iran. I don't need to be patronized as a woman too stupid to vote on policy. Hillary is DLC through and through. They nod to the left and vote to the right. I don't want them running foreign policy and we don't need any more poor people "reformed" out of assistance either.
June 3, 2008 7:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How stupid. What defeated Hillary occurred in February, you boob. She's been mostly winning ever since, but wasn't able to make up the pledged delegates, which led to a superdelegate cascade for Obama. All the rest of your drivel is just personal bitterness. Do try to get over it.
June 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can anyone tell me what it means to be a woman candidate? What difference does it make to be a woman? Seriously?
What do people imagine will be different or better about a woman's leadership & administration than the 43 men who have served before her?
It seems like there's this vague assumption by women (and some men) that women possess certain qualities or characteristics (because they are women) that give them inherent advantages over men (as far as they are concerned), but to my knowledge, this issue has never been fully discussed or debated.
I'd really like to know what notable difference it would make if our president were a woman.
Why are women supposed to be proud of Hillary, in particular? Is it really relevant that she's a woman? What is it about Hillary's being a woman that is so special?
June 3, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I never got to the stage of comparing Hillary's and Obama's positions. I realized I didn't know who Obama was and started to do my research. I found to my very great dismay and sorrow that Obama flunked my minimal standards for President -- his use of Donnie McClurkin and his lying about it was my epiphany -- I would never vote for anyone bigotted enough to use race in that fashion so why would I vote for someone willing to use a homophobe in that fashion? Turns out I'm not and it was still Hillary's race to lose at that point. Obama's continuing lies about important things like his failure to pass Nuclear Leak legislatin and his lies about why he wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and the general attitudes of the people he hangs out on merely confirmed the general impression: he was currently espousing policies similar to Hillary's but his character was like George Bush.
So my decision was a judgement about Obama -- not a reaction to the defeat of Hillary due to Obama's skilled character assassination and the glee with which the media joined in.
And, oh, that sweetie comment is just about as innocent as if I were to call him boy. He knows perfectly well that many women consider offensve -- that's why he called it a bad habit -- one which he clearly had not bothered to correct. Obama is not nearly nice enough.
June 3, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Forgive me if I am not impressed by your level of "research." You say you never even looked into his positions on issues. You had a preconceived notion and found the excuse you were looking for. Congratulations, but don't expect anyone to think you are smart, or deep, or thoughtful because of your post.
If you have managed to go all these months without finding out anything about his positions, then you are the perfect, "low information" voter Hillary depends on. Sweetie!
June 3, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It seems pretty sexist (to me) to assume that a woman candidate (like Hillary) is preferable to a man - no matter her personal qualities, her history - just because she's a woman.
His leadership style might be more like an influencer, rather than an authority figure.
He might be more of a relationship and consensus builder.
He might be more collaborative, willing to share power and promote others to become more powerful.
His temperament might be more inclusive, nurturing, supportive and deferential than hers.
And yet she's presumed to be the better candidate - just because she's also a woman?
And that's not sexist?
June 3, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, it's sexist!
As I've said all along, many people labeling themselves as feminists are not about a gender neutral society, but about making a female-centric society. And as anyone can tell you, female managers are no better as a group than male ones. We are all evolved monkeys underneath it all.
All these people screaming about having a woman in a position of power and yet we have a woman who is second in line to be POTUS. Notice that it took about a day for that boost to subside? (And that is a good thing! Pelosi shouldn't be judged as a woman.)
Hillary Clinton ran as a woman.
Barack Obama ran as an American.
And herein lies a huge difference.
June 3, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
oh please get over yourself. i can vote for whoever F---- i want.
June 3, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said p marshall.
Michelle b - people can vote how they want, but it has consequences.
if you care about any of Hillary's policies, you wouldn't vote for McCain over Obama. it is that simple
as a male I don't understand how it is a virtue worth voting for somebody just b/c they are a woman. Obviously there is a huge amount of animosity for Hillary from the Repubs that could hinder her agenda just b/c of who she is. The only thing that could get Repubs excited about voting this fall is to vote against Hillary. It is possible that Obama has a better chance of enacting policies that would better serve women in general.
I have heard many times about how men are more logical, and women are more emotional, but I have never fully subscribed to that notion. Some of the die-hard Hillary supporters have not helped me to dismiss that "stereotype" easily. This post was smart in recognizing that, and addressing the issue logically.
I would never vote for Joe Leiberman b/c we are both Jewish. Just b/c we are in the same "tribe" or "clan" doesn't mean he would effectively advocate for my positions or interests better than somebody who is not.
Kudos again on a fine post!
June 3, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said p marshall.
Michelle b - people can vote how they want, but it has consequences.
if you care about any of Hillary's policies, you wouldn't vote for McCain over Obama. it is that simple
as a male I don't understand how it is a virtue worth voting for somebody just b/c they are a woman. Obviously there is a huge amount of animosity for Hillary from the Repubs that could hinder her agenda just b/c of who she is. The only thing that could get Repubs excited about voting this fall is to vote against Hillary. It is possible that Obama has a better chance of enacting policies that would better serve women in general.
I have heard many times about how men are more logical, and women are more emotional, but I have never fully subscribed to that notion. Some of the die-hard Hillary supporters have not helped me to dismiss that "stereotype" easily. This post was smart in recognizing that, and addressing the issue logically.
I would never vote for Joe Leiberman b/c we are both Jewish. Just b/c we are in the same "tribe" or "clan" doesn't mean he would effectively advocate for my positions or interests better than somebody who is not.
Kudos again on a fine post!
June 3, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of us have been concerned since February that a tight race had the potential to cause a split in the party. Unfortunately, as the race has progressed since that time the feelings have only gotten worse. Last Saturday watching those women ranting away on the u-tube videos and claiming they would vote for McCain it occurred to me that they must be republicans. Again, it seemed too obvious to even doubt, why wouldn't the Republicans themselves create a bunch of sock-puppets to go out and create animosities among the Democrats?
So my question: Are Otto, louisville and AJM Republican sock-puppets or just overly emotional but self destructive Democrats?
June 3, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they will vote for McCain to spite us, what's the diff?
June 3, 2008 5:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
maybe they don't like NAFTA
maybe they think she was wrong about Iraq
maybe they didn't like Clinton "welfare reform"
maybe they don't like her DLC-ness
maybe they don't like her close ties to lobbyists
maybe they just like Obama better
maybe they don't want to use nuclear weapons to "obliterate"
maybe they were mad that she said "as far as I know"
that should be obvious to rational human beings
you can favor one candidate over another w/o hating
mesays: logic over emotion is Possible
June 3, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
If all of us can just put our strong emotional feelings aside, Barack won because his people ran a smarter campaign than Hillary's people. How a person runs a campaign is not a 100% indicator as to how they would run the government, but I'd rather start off with someone who ran a campaign as Barack did his than as Hillary did hers. Each of us can assign how much smearing each candidate ran, but it seems to me Barack will run a government of which all US citizens can be proud.
June 3, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. GWB ran two very good Campaigns.....what did we get?
June 3, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your well thought out diary.
June 3, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the report? I would like to read it.
June 3, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but it doesn't mean that institutional misogyny hasn't been an open public factor - not the sole factor, but one Democrats, whether Obama supporters or not, ignore at their peril . It's been a real factor in this campaign, and has been part of the general tone in terms of her coverage.
I'm not saying that there aren't real reasons to oppose her candidacy - as I said, I didn't support her - but the sheer venom and idiocy regularly displayed against her for reasons that never touch policy, or because "the clintonistas did it first" are the most discouraging thing I've found in this campaign. Far too many Obama supporters show, in posts and comments at least, the inability to resist the sexist, personal taunt. And frankly, what I saw at my own caucus in WA state, which I documented at NYT [1], left me utterly disgusted.
Could the jackassery stop sometime this month? Please? Do we really want another Scalito?
[1] http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/02/10/opinion/10rich.html?permid=202#comment202