I think the talk of the Clinton-Obama tearing the Democratic Party apart is a bit overstated; this strikes me as the kind of thing where emotions will run high until, at some point, things wrap up and emotions stop running high. But Michele Goldberg raises a more reasonable micro-concern that pro-Clinton feminist leaders' open scorn for Obama-backing women could do real harm to feminism: "The irony is that, for the overwhelming majority of women, voting against Clinton was never about repudiating second-wave feminism. But the more leaders of the movement insist on conflating their noble struggle for social justice with the fate of an uninspiring and nepotistic candidate, the less relevant it will be."
« The Romance of Empire | Main | Caron: The Return »
Torn
14 Mar 2008 10:27 am
Comments (113)
You don't have to actually tear the party apart. You just have to get everyone scared enough that that would happen, and show every sign that you will continue your current strategy whether that happens or not, and suddenly you might have a tool to force Obama to yield to his concern for party stability and be Clinton's VP.
That's pretty silly. Michelle Goldberg is, at best, barely on the good side of the Professional Concern Troll line, and it's not that surprising to see her go for this one.
The number of people paying attention to Robin Morgan is just vanishingly small.
It's nice that Michelle "don't want to say I'm pro-choice" Goldberg is so concerned about the present state of feminism. Speaking as a feminist, she can start trying to actually do something for equal rights rather than expressing an undying concern for the risks posed to feminism unless equal rights get sold down the river pronto.
If Goldberg had done even an ounce of researh, she would have found a wide-ranging debate in the feminist blogosphere as to the merits of Steinem's case. She could have considered the idea that not all feminists are white - there was a great response at Reappropriate.
But the existence of difference and diversity in feminist coalitions would have killed Goldberg's concern trolling, so she just let it go.
As a Clinton supporter I don't think an Obama victory poses any danger to feminism or women's rights. And I don't think a Clinton victory poses any danger for civil rights, since she and Bill have been standing up for civil rights their entire adult lives. On both sides this is an over-blown concern. I think what is a legitimate concern is that no matter who wins, the supporters of the loser could be angry, bitter and disappointed. I'm thinking particularly of blacks and young people for Obama, and middle-aged to older white women for Clinton, and to a lesser degree white working class Democrats and latinos. Either way it's a real concern for a Democrat winning the White House this year.
pro-Clinton feminist leaders' open scorn for Obama-backing women could do real harm to feminism...
So the old women should just sit down and shut up. Yes, we've been hearing that loud and clear, thanks.
Neh. I take back the second comment. That was a misreading of Goldberg. She does a relatively good job of articulating the debates, though she reduces it badly down to an age gap, when that's only one factor.
And she doesn't cite a single non-white feminist.
But she does talk about a debate. she then inexplicably ends the article:
Many progressives, male and female alike, see Clinton as cynical and narcissistic, pandering to interest-group sectarianism even as she compromises on important principals. It would be a hideous shame if they came to see feminism the same way.
But why would they?? Goldberg explained that there was lots of debates among feminists. This is just more concern trolling.
This reader humbly suggests your post should be edited as follows:
I think the talk of the Clinton-Obama tearing the Democratic Party apart is a bit overstated; this strikes me as the kind of thing where emotions will run high until, at some point, things wrap up and emotions stop running high.
Neither currently has an assured 2025 delegates. They are incredibly similar candidates, despite what one may have read on blogs. There is a significant period of time between now and the next primary, and successive primaries after that. Variables have been known to change over time. The Democratic party will no doubt survive in similar condition as before. End of story.
All the drama queens and sturm and drang, all the other narratives, in the immortal words of Dieter of Sprockets, have grown quite tiresome.
"I think the talk of the Clinton-Obama tearing the Democratic Party apart is a bit overstated; this strikes me as the kind of thing where emotions will run high until, at some point, things wrap up and emotions stop running high."
Matt, is there something other than a gut feeling behind this? I'm at a loss to understand how, at some point in the future, the bruised feelings and resentment caused by this campaign just magically up and disappears.
Hope is not a plan.
I'm at a loss to understand how, at some point in the future, the bruised feelings and resentment caused by this campaign just magically up and disappears.
Two things.
1) The blogosphere != the voting public. There has been no drop in Democratic identification or any of the core indicators of the party's strength. I think the number of people paying attention enough to get angry at one candidate or the other is pretty small.
2) John McCain. Once the Democratic candidate starts drawing contrasts, most partisans will come home.
My main worry is that the racist tactics of the Clintons will drive down African-American turnout if she wins. Luckily, it's really unlikely that she'll win, so it should be ok.
And I don't think a Clinton victory poses any danger for civil rights, since she and Bill have been standing up for civil rights their entire adult lives.
Sure, let's count the ways - outspoken support for the death penalty, allowing the military to discriminate against gays, support for NAFTA, welfare reform, support for criminalizing flag burning, on the record as opposing gay marriage - yup, the Clintons' record is just a litany of progressive causes, isn't it?
Get serious Tim. You can convince us easily that Clinton is a better choice than McCain, maybe you can convince us that she's tougher and meaner than Obama, but don't try to pretend that the Clintons are progressives in any meaningful way. In Europe Hilary would be considered slightly to the left of Thatcher.
It's really convenient that Obama supporters see a great danger of Obama's core groups deserting the party if Clinton is the nominee, but totally dismiss the danger of Clinton groups be demoralized of Obama is the nominee. It's a completely self-serving and unserious line of thinking.
Well it will have a very concrete negative impact on feminism - by guaranteeing McCain's election, Clinton has guaranteed that Roe v Wade will be overturned. But whatever, logic and basic decency have ceased to matter with the Clintonoids.
And I think - no, I'm sure - that you are wrong about the long term impact on the Democratic party. If anything, I don't think that most people have grasped how bad the damage is. You think emotions are high now? Check back in two months or so. And the convention will be even more ugly, whatever the outcome. Finally, what happens when the loser fails to endorse the winner?
The party is going to splinter; the only question is what arises from the ashes, since the Republicans are not well positioned to pick up the pieces.
As for myself, all I can say is that, if Clinton wins the nomination, it will feel awfully strange pulling the lever for McCain. But I'll do it; The Monster is worse than The Madman.
Tim K,
because Obama's key groups are either, in the case of young voters, not usually in play or in the case of African-American voters, have a highly vested interest and stake in Obama. what new groups does Hillary bring to the Democratic party and who is as highly vested in her? i'd reasonably say none for the former, and older white females for the latter?
pragmatically speaking, i think the Democratic party can afford to miff older white females and maybe have a work a bit harder for working class (read: low information) votes; i don't think it can afford to, as will be the case, completely turn off the youth vote and substantially stymie the African-American vote. and those are of course only the big constituencies.
pragmatically speaking, i think the Democratic party can afford to miff older white females and maybe have a work a bit harder for working class (read: low information) votes; i don't think it can afford to, as will be the case, completely turn off the youth vote and substantially stymie the African-American vote. and those are of course only the big constituencies.
Huh? This seems completely backasswards. I think precisely the opposite is true. You CAN in fact piss off your strongest support groups (in the case of Democrats, for example, African Americans), because in the end, they are the most likely to come home and vote for you. You can't afford to piss off swing votes - groups that very easily could end up voting for the other party (e.g., working class a/k/a Reagan Democrats).
After all, Bill Clinton Sister Soulja'd a black person, not a Reagan Democrat. And he ended up winning.
Well it will have a very concrete negative impact on feminism - by guaranteeing McCain's election, Clinton has guaranteed that Roe v Wade will be overturned.
...
As for myself, all I can say is that, if Clinton wins the nomination, it will feel awfully strange pulling the lever for McCain. But I'll do it;
fuck you.
-McCain's presidency will lead to the mass intrusion of state coercive power against women's bodies
-I will vote for McCain because, well, Clinton is a "monster"
Your investment in women's rights is staggering.
Tim K,
More to the point, barring a complete Obama meltdown of some kind, Clinton can only win by overriding the will of the majority of voters. That majority includes most black voters, the Democrats' most loyal voting bloc, who would feel (rightly) that they have been blatantly disenfranchised in return for their decades of support; and young people without strong party loyalty who will (wrongly, in my view) regard the choice between Clinton and McCain as no choice at all.
Well Tim K, when we see Obama surrogates, with the obvious acquiesence of the campaign, employ a concerted attack on feminism through dogwhistle appeals to misogyny, then lets talk.
Seems to me that a genuine and warm concession speech on the part of the losing candidate (whoever and whenever that is) would go a long way towards patching up some of those wounds and healing some of those divides.
And I think if that happens, combined with soon-to-be-more-prominent contrasts with McCain, the party won't find it too difficult to come back together. It's not like this is the first hotly contested primary that we've ever hard.
And, for the record, I agree with DivGuy. Even if Clinton wins the nomination in a way that I find illegitimate, I'm going to vote for her. A McCain presidency would be an absolute disaster.
BA:
The Democrats need more than "new groups" to be elected, they need the "old groups" to stay with them and turnout in similar numbers as the past.
I'm somewhat concerned that if Clinton were the nominee African American turnout could be depressed, but I have no doubt Clinton would win at the very least 85% of the black vote and probably more. I'm not too concerned that a record amount of young people won't show up at the polls. A record number of young people showed up in 2004 and supporting John Kerry overwhelming and he lost. Democrats have won the White House without a record number of young people voting. A legitimate concern is that McCain would win independents in a Clinton-McCain match-up.
What Obama supporters should be concerned about are latinos, working class white Democrats, and middle-aged to older white women. These are three groups without which a Democrat cannot be elected to the White House, it's that simple. And it's not that Obama would lose any of these groups, but if there are a significantly greater number of defections to McCain it could easily cost him the election. Latino turnout is critical to winning states like Nevada, New Mexico and Florida. A Democrat cannot win Pennsylvania without winning older women by a large margin. And if too many working class white Democrats (the Reagan Democrats) defect to McCain under Obama, then Michigan is lost and Ohio is a dream.
Div Guy,
Maybe that's something that you Clinton supporters should have thought of before backing the slime.
Bottom line: as important as abortion rights are, I'm not going to vote for an insane megalomaniac warmongering race baiter just to preserve them. The fact is, as bad a McCain is, especially on my key issues (foreign policy and related domestic concerns), he is better than The Monster on every issue except judges. Yes, I think that, while both candidates are highly likely to involve us in more wars, The Monster is more likely than McCain to do so. And she would be worse on presidential power issues, along with a whole host of other issues. Moreover, with presidents as horrible as both would be, having a divided government will be a good thing. I tremble to think what Clinton is capable of without the check of a Republican congress (granted, if she is as poisonous as I expect on the down ticket races, the calculus could go the other way. So if it looks like the Republicans are poised to take back congress, I suppose I might vote third party rather than for McCain).
Mark Kleiman says it best:
Clothespin for nose: 25 cents.
Campaign contribution: somewhere between $5 and $2300.
Keeping the next Federalist Society member off the Supreme Court: priceless.
Seems to me that a genuine and warm concession speech on the part of the losing candidate (whoever and whenever that is) would go a long way towards patching up some of those wounds and healing some of those divides.
Come on, do you really expect The Monster to make such a speech? Obama would, probably, though it most likely won't be enough to make The Monster a viable candidate.
Amendment to Kleiman's statement
Campaign contribution: The money it takes to gas up the car to get to the voting booth.
Maybe that's something that you Clinton supporters should have thought of before backing the slime.
Logical!
If poor women wanted their bodily autonomy protected by law, they shouldn't have... wait, no, other relatively unrelated people shouldn't have used unethical tactics in a presidential campaign. That'll show those poor women!
You are either breathtakingly stupid, or morally reprehensible. It could be both, I guess.
Sadly, I think Tim K is onto something, at least with the idea Obama needs to worry about Clinton's voters in a general election. I've noticed a considerable uptick in the anger of many Clinton supporters in the last few weeks (hello Ferraro!). I sense that many are somehow being convinced that Obama, despite leading just about every metric, is on the verge of stealing the nomination from Hillary. An emotional argument (it's her turn) is being melded with an electoral one (FL and Mi MUST be seated as is and caucus delegates are illegitimate) to create a toxic stew of misguided resentment. What percentage of her supporters fit into this category is beyond me. But I suspect it grows with each passing day Clinton stays in the race.
I'm at a loss to understand how, at some point in the future, the bruised feelings and resentment caused by this campaign just magically up and disappears.
Easy - a common enemy will take care of it. The day the nomination is sewn up is the day Democrats start remembering about 250 reasons why they don't want John McCain to be President. And once the Rovian attacks start to fly against the Democratic candidate and Democrats in general, all the bad feelings from the winter will evaporate.
Easy - a common enemy will take care of it. The day the nomination is sewn up is the day Democrats start remembering about 250 reasons why they don't want John McCain to be President. And once the Rovian attacks start to fly against the Democratic candidate and Democrats in general, all the bad feelings from the winter will evaporate.
Agreed.
It also looks like the economy's going to be deep in the shitter by November. While that sucks, it also means that the Democrats could probably win with Eliot Spitzer at the head of the ticket.
Sadly, I think Tim K is onto something, at least with the idea Obama needs to worry about Clinton's voters in a general election. I've noticed a considerable uptick in the anger of many Clinton supporters in the last few weeks (hello Ferraro!).
So have I. But it's just because they are losing. Losing is difficult and painful, and always causes feelings of anger, resentment, denial etc. Unless one of the candidates actually does steal the nomination through some sort of procedural shenanigans, the other candidate's supporters will eventually get over it.
You are either breathtakingly stupid, or morally reprehensible. It could be both, I guess.
Morally reprehensible? I'm not the guy supporting a woman who proudly advocates killing brown people in other nations to support American hegemony, just because he thinks she is going to be better on judges.
A Clinton supporter calling anyone morally reprehensible is a bit like Bush, blood dripping from his hands, calling Democrats morally reprehensible for opposing torture.
In any event, if The Monster wins the nomination, I promise you that, the day after the general election, I will be here to laugh in the faces of Clinton supporters after her 50 state defeat.
Obama is only in this position because of the extra bone in his ankle
Morally reprehensible? I'm not the guy supporting a woman who proudly advocates killing brown people in other nations to support American hegemony, just because he thinks she is going to be better on judges.
Be a little more pragmatic about this. Clinton's support for the Iraq war has been reprehensible, but she isn't going to start any new wars, and her position on what to do in Iraq now is pretty much the same as Obama's.
The composition of the Supreme Court, on the other hand, could fuck America up good for a long time.
"Tearing the party apart" might be too strong. The party will survive. It just won't be in the White House.
DivGuy,
I find it hard to imagine that "the blogosphere" is some weird hermetically sealed little world that doesn't impact politics more generally. The Ferraro mess, and the ongoing Rev. Wright mess, like the "monster" mess, like the "Jesse Jackson won SC twice" mess, didn't play out in some bubble online. It was on the nightly news and in the morning papers all across the country, and different groups within the democratic coalitions are (going by the racial/gender breakdown of exit polling) responding very differently, and their loyalties to their respective candidates are hardening quickly.
"2) John McCain. Once the Democratic candidate starts drawing contrasts, most partisans will come home."
And the exact same dynamic is in play on the other side. It would be a mistake to assume that McCain is or was the consensus candidate of the bulk of the party. Republican partisans will come home to McCain as well.
As a radical feminist and an obama supporter, feminist Clinton supporters fascinate me. I listen in earnest whenever anyone argues that a President Hillary Clinton will be a joyful day for feminism. I am also intrigued by their beliefs that a President Obama will be destructive for women's rights.
To these folks, I calmly point out that feminism is NOT just about gender, and thinking of it in such a unidimensional sense ignores the nuanced ways race and gender intersect. If feminists deny the importance of a black male president, they're doing a disservice to women of color. The feminist movement failed because it clumsily allied itself with civil rights. We know how that contentious alliance ended (see Audre Lorde's "Master's Tools" speech).
Much discussion goes on among my feminist friends about how Hillary is treated unfairly. It's unfair when Hillary's pantsuits are picked apart but Obama's clothing isn't. Yes, yes but they dont understand that when Obama gets car keys thrown at him at a restaurant ("Hey Valet!") it's just as bad as the "iron my shirt" comments.
But Hillary is running on a call to "make history." She tauts her feminist politics. But it's only one kind of feminist politics, and not one I share. To me, telling China "women's rights are human rights" smacks of 1970s white racist feminism. You can't be a white woman telling other countries how to start a feminist movement..it's gotta come from Chinese women themselves. Hillary's crowning moment for feminism is based on condescension. Feminism is so much more than the bumper sticker slogan ("women's rights are human rights"). If anyone wants to understand how today's feminism has evolved (and why Clinton is so far behind), read the edited volume Colonize This!
Obama is a 3rd wave feminist. It's difficult for people to wrap their heads around, but if you come from a mixed race background and have roots in third world countries, you espouse a different feminism than the one the media is familiar with.
I agree with the comments above that Obama is discounting the true anger out there of a lot of Clinton supporters, mostly white women. I'm not sure I understand the full-out anger, but it's definitely there. From where I stand, Obama hasn't done a thing that is underhanded to "steal" the election away from Hillary Clinton. He hasn't demanded that votes from unfair elections be counted; he hasn't announced plans to try to take away Hillary Clinton's pledged delegates. But he HAS discounted these voters by making his comment about how he'll be able to bring Clinton's voters to the polls in November, while she'll have a tough time getting his there.
I believe it's going to be tough regardless who wins this thing. Feelings will be hurt no matter who is the nominee and I don't know whether anything can bring everyone back together. Neither side should be discounting the feelings of the other side, but both seem to be doing just that.
That said, with respect to the initial post, I'm not sure that the Hillary supporters' scorn of Obama-supporting women will affect feminism, but it sure does affect my view of some feminists. I'm a woman, just slightly post-Baby Boom, and I support Obama. If one more woman fires at me by paraphrasing that Madeleine Albright quote (telling me "there's a special place in hell for women who don't vote for other women") I don't think I can be held accountable for my reaction. Isn't feminism supposed to be all about making up one's own mind and doing the best one can do? Why should I be "required" to support Hillary Clinton solely because she's a woman, when I strongly disagree with the type of politics she practices and with the right-of-center politics the Clintons have always practiced once they've gotten into office? Does that mean I'm also "required" to vote for Elizabeth Dole when she comes up for re-election as Senator in my state, even though I disagree with her? I honestly don't understand that stupid paraphrase at all. It's anti-feminist in my book.
But how could I possibly go against feminism itself? I understand that I'm where I am because a LOT of women before me had it a bit tougher than I do. I still believe I've had to work harder to get where I've gotten than many of the men with whom I've worked, but it's obviously easier for me than it was for the generation before mine. So I can't abandon feminism itself. Still, it's terribly disappointing to hear feminists tell me I'm a "traitor" simply because I'm not voting for someone with whom I disagree.
They are incredibly similar candidates, despite what one may have read on blogs.
It is not wise to conflate "having similar positions on issues" with being "incredibly similar candidates." There is, and should be, much more to a candidacy than merely positions on issues.
Related to my post above:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 50% to 42% in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. This is the first time Obama has ever reached 50% in fifteen months of daily polling on the race. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 84% to 9%. Among White voters, Clinton leads 50% to 39%. Two-thirds of voters who now support Clinton are women. Among white women Clinton leads by twenty-five. In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads 51% to 38%.
The General Election is essentially tied no matter who the Democrats nominate. It’s McCain 45% Obama 44% and McCain 46% Clinton 44%. In both match-ups, McCain enjoys more unified support from Republicans than his opponents do from Democrats."
Obama has made something that's been an itch in my political brain for years into an open thought; My party needs to be torn apart, at least at the top
In the period since Reagan won his first election the leadership in my party has gone from being The Democrats to being The Anti-Republicans.
They don't seriously try to advance the broader party agenda as long as they can make talking points of being blocked by the Republicans. Making political hay for the next fund raiser or campaign is more important than making public policy.
Now Obama is trying to take the leadership away from that crowd ans suddenly they know how to fight for the power they want to keep in a way they haven't fought for the policies we elected them to support.
Break it, change it, save it.
"1) The blogosphere != the voting public. There has been no drop in Democratic identification or any of the core indicators of the party's strength. I think the number of people paying attention enough to get angry at one candidate or the other is pretty small."
However, for the first time since Bush came into office, Bill Clinton actually has net negatives. This happened because black voters are starting to truly hate Bill Clinton deeply. Not only is he now starting to be seen as racist, but it gets compounded by the betrayal.
Second-wave feminists think they sum up feminism and never seem to realize that the feminist discourse ended up evolving past them. Some of them, especially Steinem, remained relevant due to intellect and institutions (founding Ms. Magazine), yet many, especially Dworkin and Germaine Greer, became jokes. Dworkin's homophobia has also soured her legacy to third and fourth wave feminists. In my experience, many very strong younger female feminists can't help but role their eyes when older women express pride in voting for Clinton. To younger feminists, she's not a feminist icon, but a person who stood by a someone who repeatedly betrayed her and her daughter's trust while calling his girlfriends lying whores and backing the Iraq War. Gaining power through marriage, for us, is actually an attack on feminism. Intellectually killing off the 2nd wave, which has long been committing suicide, to allow the third and fourth wave to flourish is actually a good thing. Old second wave feminists writers think they own feminism and demand loyalty. Liberals don't owe their candidate their votes. I could take them seriously if they were trying to get Barbara Boxer to run instead of backing Clinton, but this whole ordeal has just been embarrassing.
Take Florida. An electoral college majority for either Democrat looks very tight without winning the state of Florida.
Florida is the "oldest" US state in terms of demographics. As of the 2000 census 17.6% of it's popular was over the age of 65. The next oldest state is Pennsylvania, followed closely by West Virginia and Iowa. Running against a 72-year-old war hero I somehow think the senior vote is going to be a bit more important than the 18-24 vote.
Latinos made up 14.4% of the US population as of 2005, more than African Americans at 12.8%. While African make up their largest share most in states that will not be in play this November such as South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, Latinos are largest in swing states. They make up 44% of the population of New Mexico, and roughly 25% of the population of Nevada, two states the Democrats need to win as well.
Once again, Florida is key in this respect as 18% of its population is Latino. It has often been difficult for Democrats to win over the hispanic voters of this state because its largest subset, Cuban Americans, have traditionally gravitated to the GOP. If Senator Obama is the nominee this task will not be made easier by his promise to meet with Raul Castro without preconditions. It may not be a major issue to most voters, as it surely is not, but it is a major issue in that community. If Obama is the nominee how is he going to be able to win Florida without significant advantages with seniors, particularly older white women and Latinos?
Obama also has concerns with working class Democrats. Ohio ranks 31st among states in median household income, Florida ranks 33rd, Missouri ranks 36th, New Mexico is 43rd, West Virginia is 48th and Arkansas is 50th. These are all swing states the Democrats need to do well in, and all places where Obama's appeal to affluent and more highly educated voters will not help. If Connecticut, Maryland, Hawaii and New Jersey were this years swing states then Obama would probably be the choice, but they are not. Of the 10 states with highest median household income, only New Hampshire is among the swing states.
These are serious concerns based on evidence and cannot be dismissed because of hope and faith in one's candidate.
Clinton's support for the Iraq war has been reprehensible, but she isn't going to start any new wars
Honestly, as must as I genuinely loath The Monster, as much as I genuinely fear having a person of her character in the White House, and as bad as I am convinced she will be on many other issues (including but not limited to presidential power issues), if I really believed that she wouldn't start any new wars, I might, indeed, with much reluctance hold my nose and vote for the Monster.
But I don't believe it, for a minute.
Trying to step away from the anger for a moment, let me also say this - there are a couple other meta issues involved here. While I am certainly not one of those Obama supporters who is naive enough to believe that politics is some gentlemanly game that can be fought cleanly without rancor, we have, in recent years, gone very far toward the other extreme: where the voters have rewarded practitioners (in both parties) of the politics of personal destruction. A vote for McCain, in a Clinton /McCain match up, would be a welcome vote against such politics. Whereas if The Monster is successful, the message will be that those sort of politics are not just acceptable, but almost mandatory. I hate to think what kind of scotched earth tactics will result.
The irony, of course, is that Clinton makes the right wing smear merchants look like amateurs.
But maybe the bottom line is this. What Clinton has done, in essence, is that she (metaphorically) has strapped a bomb to herself, grabbed the Democratic party around the throat, and said "if you don't nominate me, I'll blow us both up." I just don't think those sort of tactics should ever be rewarded.
But really all of this is a moot point. Obama will still win the nomination, I'll vote for him, and he does have some chance of victory, unlike the monster, though much less of one than he would have before Clinton embarked on her vicious attacks against him.
And hey, for those of us genuinely concerned about Roe v Wade, at least he will be better for the down ticket races; maybe the Senate will grow a spine and refuse to confirm McCain's worst judicial picks.
So, to summarize...
-LarryM has backed off his slimy glee at the prospect of women's rights being trampled
-He has articulated a desire to vote for McCain as the anti-war candidate
Breathtakingly stupid it is!
Related to my post above:
"The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama leading Hillary Clinton 50% to 42% in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. This is the first time Obama has ever reached 50% in fifteen months of daily polling on the race. Among African-American voters, Obama leads 84% to 9%. Among White voters, Clinton leads 50% to 39%. Two-thirds of voters who now support Clinton are women. Among white women Clinton leads by twenty-five. In Pennsylvania, Clinton leads 51% to 38%.
The General Election is essentially tied no matter who the Democrats nominate. It’s McCain 45% Obama 44% and McCain 46% Clinton 44%. In both match-ups, McCain enjoys more unified support from Republicans than his opponents do from Democrats."
I thought that was a great op-ed, although I hope it overstated the case a bit. The Gloria Steinem-style second wave feminists have a very conflicted relationship with younger women like me. On the one hand, we do appreciate their fighting the good fight, and we do realize that were it not for these older, more radical if you wish, women, we wouldn't have had the progress that we have had.
On the other hand, they make us cra-hazy.
Michelle Goldberg's best points are going unrefuted and undiscussed by the Clintonistas here. Why, exactly, apart from being female, is she a better choice for feminism? Why is she a better choice for progressivism? Why is she not uninspiring and nepotistic? Why must everything be seen, to these women, in black and white?
I think younger women have a more complicated and nuanced relationship with feminism, and I think that's natural and normal. There's nothing wrong with saying, you know, I appreciate it that I can work full-time and raise children and not be demonized for it, but holy cow does it feel sometimes like I have gone from the frying pan into the fire. There's nothing wrong with saying, I refuse to submit to the vagina litmus test. I wouldn't for Phyllis Schlafly, and I won't for Hillary Clinton either. If you're losing a game that was tilted in your favor to begin with, maybe you need to show why you deserve to catch back up, not what's wrong with everyone else.
Be a little more pragmatic about this. Clinton's support for the Iraq war has been reprehensible, but she isn't going to start any new wars, and her position on what to do in Iraq now is pretty much the same as Obama's.
Actually, I wouldn't be too sure about that. Part of my reasons for opposing her have to do with my belief that if Clinton becomes President we'll be engaged in some kind of military action against Syria and Iran before her first year has expired - unless Bush starts the expanded before he leaves office.
Of course, the same is true with McCain.
As far as Clinton's recent claims that she would never have gone to war against Iraq, despite her vote for the authorization, I frankly think she is just lying for the sake of Democratic party doves and electoral necessity. She's fully invested in the "long war".
Well, in Pennsylvania, you have older white ladies likely to be decisive in the PA primary. But guess what! They also go for Obama over McCain. Rendell said as much, to the chagrin of Mark Penn.
The issue isn't whether one group or another's preferred candidate isn't the nominee. The issue is whether there's a perception of unfairness. Like it or not, when Obama gets the nominee, nobody can say it'll be unfair because he has the majority of pledged delegates and will take the popular vote. If Clinton wins, it will be by bloodying Obama up to such an extent that the superdelegates swing to her. (Not even Democratic congressmen are dumb enoguh to buy the "big state" argument.) If that's the case, there will be a risk that there'll be less support. This is in addition to the claims that Obama's voters are somehow not "real Americans," or that they're in states that "don't count," which don't bode well for turnout.
This will likely be all moot, because Obama's going to win, but Tim K's dead wrong to assume a moral or practical equivalence between the two outcomes, based on how each got where.
As for Goldberg, yes, the notion that women must vote for the woman denies women independent agency, while the whole goal of feminism I would think would be to empower women to think and act for themselves on an equal footing with men. When they might make a different choice is entirely a consequence of feminism, not false consciousness. I also agree with every shot at Hillary from the left Goldberg made, so there is that.
... against Syria and Iran before her first year has expired - unless Bush starts the expanded before he leaves office.
That was supposed to be:
against Syria and Iran before her first year has expired - unless Bush starts the expanded war before he leaves office.
The key to legitimacy for the Democratic nominee is that, as others have stated, we have the appearance of fairness. Whomever has the advantage of pledged delegates and popular vote SHOULD be the nominee in the absence of reaching the 2025 pledged delegate threshold. Obviously it get messy if those two metrics are split. (Yes I know delegates theoretically are all that matter from a rules standpoint, but i am speaking to perceptions which are critical in this tight race). That said while it is regrettable that FL & MI (I live in MI) have been disqualified, my concern is that the up tick in anger from Clinton's surrogates is directly related to her posturing on either counting "AS IS" which is really a ridiculously unethical argument or a re-vote which I believe is far more reasonable and defensible from anyone's standpoint. That said, the re-vote is complicated. It may or may not happen due to cost, logistics, time factors..etc. However, Hillary is basically making the argument that if the re-vote DOES NOT happen then nomination is being stolen. They all knew at the start these states were NOT going to count in any fashion, delegates or popular vote. Once again, I prefer a re-vote, but if that does not happen it will not be Obama's fault that these states were disenfranchised. It will be the idiotic democratic state party officials. I fear the Clinton campaign is using this boondoggle in a way that infuriates her supporters and unfairly delegitimizes Obama's lead.
DivGuy,
One thing that I think you're discounting is the degree to which the apparatus of political feminism is in the tank for the Clintons. These are the same people who came out to defend Bill 10 years ago. (As they would never have done if he had been a Fortune 500 CEO with an intern)
One of the Clintons' greatest political talents has always been their ability to court and co-opt the leadership of political organizations. As a result, they can count on a certin store of personal loyaty from people who should be guided by principles.
At the beginning of the primary campaign, there were more civil rights leaders supporting Clinton than Obama. The Human Rights Campaign endorsed Clinton early and enthusiastically. (Out of loyalty to the guy who signed DoMA) Feminists have been no different. Their representatives have swung behind Sen. Clinton in a much more uniform fashion than the rank and file.
If the nineties didn't split the movement, I doubt this will either. To the degree that there is a real divide here, it is over tactics (who will do more to help the Cause) not philosophy.
"Obama is a 3rd wave feminist. It's difficult for people to wrap their heads around, but if you come from a mixed race background and have roots in third world countries, you espouse a different feminism than the one the media is familiar with.
Posted by Meg | March 14, 2008 11:56 AM"
I submit myself as People's Evidence A, but I would probably place myself more in the fourth wave (erasing norms between genders to allow people to have the personalities, tastes, body language, etc. they want while also embracing LGBT rights), but I have a lot of love for the third.
By the 2nd wave's logic, the fact that if Bobby Jindal is on the Republican ticket in 2012 and I vote against him, I'm just a self-hating Indian. That's jut stupid.
And Tim K, the electoral map is tight without a lot of states. If Clinton loses the Pacific Northwest and the Upper Midwest without flipping Colorado and Virginia, which is rather likely, she loses even with Florida and Ohio. Cherry-picking a single state is just a form of misdirection. Also, I think you will see a lot more Latino Democrats stay loyal to Obama than you will see African-Americans stay loyal to Clinton. After all, if an African-American can break the white lock on the presidency, it makes it that much easier to elect a Latino president. People forget how many social ties bind non-Cuban Latinos and African-Americans. The second-most common interracial marriage in America is between a black man and a Latina.
"Feminists" are well within their rights to be upset about losing. But if they were truly feminists they wouldn't have latched on to a candidate who has padded her professional resume and is only a leading contender because of who she married.
If this is a referendum on feminism then true feminism has won with an Obama nomination.
-He has articulated a desire to vote for McCain as the anti-war candidate
Only relative to The Monster.
And, while I will concede that both of them are pretty horrible, and one could construct a case that Clinton is no worse, or maybe even a tiny, tiny, bit better than McCain on those grounds (again, I don't buy it, I'm just saying that one could make a case), anyone who thinks that The Monster would be significantly better than McCain on those issues has to ignore many years of consistently hawkish statements from Clinton (statements which, to her credit, in the sense that there are apparently some positions she won't disavow for purely political reasons, she has not disavowed).
We don't need to over analyze the motivations of women voters in this presidential race.
I see Hillary Clinton as a politician. Period.
There isn't anything extraordinary about this viewpoint just because I am a woman.
"pro-Clinton feminist leaders' open scorn for Obama-backing women could do real harm to feminism."
I don't see it harming feminism as a whole so much as harming the reputation of these pro-Clinton feminist leaders within feminism.
As long as Obama wins this will heal. I say that not as a comment on either Obama or Clinton, but on the age of their supporters. As long as youth wins out the long term effects are mild; perhaps even positive. If Clinton wins, though, this rifts could be much deeper and more enduring.
Reality:
Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio together have 68 electoral votes, or 1/4 of the votes needed to win. That doesn't even count Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia (another 23 electoral votes) that have a much better chance of going for Clinton than Obama. Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa together have 35 electoral votes.
A Democrat hasn't won the White House without carrying Ohio or Florida in 48 years. A Democrat hasn't won the White House without Pennsylvania in 60 years. A Democrat hasn't won without West Virginia in 96 years. A Democrat has never won without carrying Arkansas (since Arkansas has been a state).
Virginia, on the other hand, hasn't voted for the Democratic nominee since Truman and that didn't stop Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton from being elected. And Clinton won easily in 1996 without Colorado.
It seems to me that the real concern is not the threat to feminism but the threat to race-relations. If leading democrats choose to anoint Hillary at the convention--in spite of Obama's lead in delegates--it may irreparably damage the black community's faith in the party's commitment to racial equality.
The problem isn't so much Democrat supporters jumping ship, as independents and swing voters. Dems need them to win the election, but a vast majority of these people will never ever even consider voting fro Clinton, that's just a bridge too far for them, while they are quite open to voting for Obama.
Bottom line: nominate Clinton and you loose, for sure.
Tim K, nice duck and dodge there by adding in PA, like I would be retarded enough not to notice that. You really aren't as clever as you think you are, so when you pull this stuff, it just makes you look dishonest. We aren't idiots here like you think we are. Never mind that Obama actually does better in the general at this point in PA vs. McCain than Clinton does. As someone pointed out above, Rendell noticed that it looks like older white women in PA are more likely to vote for Obama vs. McCain than Clinton. I also notice you ignore Michigan, which at this points goes for Obama vs. McCain, but for McCain vs. Clinton. You also fail to recognize how the Clintons' reputation among many African-Americans is trashed, meaning they stand to lose the main Democratic base in the South (black voters). Just because you don't think they race-baited doesn't mean a lot of African-Americans don't recognize it as well. What better time to stay home and teach the Democrats a lesson then when two traitors kill the first real African-American candidate's shot through race-baiting and backroom deals when running against the first Republican in memory to have suffered electorally from anti-black race-baiting?
"Virginia, on the other hand, hasn't voted for the Democratic nominee since Truman and that didn't stop Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton from being elected."
Different maps over different periods, so apples and oranges. Besides Virginia is becoming more of a northeastern state as time goes on and can be an easy pick up. She's not going to get West Virginia or Tennessee vs. McCain, so you can give up that fantasy. The only new state she puts into play that Kerry got blown away in in 2004 is Arkansas, so big whoop. Really, when you argue that Clinton, one of the most hated national Democratic figures, is electable, you are hopelessly out of touch. You're flailing around grasping at any possible argument. You've seen all of your arguments, especially the experience and judgment ones, slip through your fingers. All you have left is arguing about Florida and Ohio. It's said.
Beautifully put, Meg!
Maybe I live too much in a bubble - albeit one that stretches from Chicago down to San Antonio and over to the SF Bay Area - but from whence did this idea come??? I'll be 50 two weeks after the election and, amongst my women friends and family (all Dems, most liberals), I know exactly ONE WOMAN who supports HRC. Her reason? She wants Bill back in the White.
Amongst these women, John Edwards did exceedingly well, with Obama a close second. All now back Obama. Why not Clinton? They do not trust her. There's a strong feeling that the Clintons will always put their self-interest ahead of the country's. She's remained far too tied to her husband.
My dream? That Obama, as President, names HRC to the Supreme Court. She would finally be free to use her brilliant mind to a non-political use, yet would very likely leave a far greater mark on U.S. history. Besides, I'd love to hear her argue with Scalia.
Tim K., there is no evidence that Obama wouldn't be able to win whatever states historically "must" be won by Democrats in order to win the general.
There is also no evidence that Hillary wouldn't be able to win whatever states historically "must" be won by Democrats in order to win the general.
There is evidence, however, that HRC cannot win the pledged delegate count mathematically and is currently behind in popular vote and will quite likely remain behind in popular vote EVEN IF she manages to have the rules changed mid-stream to benefit her. Additionally, there is evidence that contests so far have rejected her 2-1, with Obama winning 30 contests to her 15.
There is evidence that Obama has won more primaries and more caucuses, more blue states and more red states. There is evidence that over half of HRC's current popular vote total has come from ONLY 5 states. There is evidence that superdelegates have been going for Obama 2 to 1 since Iowa launched this primary.
If you are so adamant in refusing to look at actual evidence, why should anyone care what your made-up evidence indicates? Go away already.
Okay, even I can appreciate the notion of Clinton on the SC; it certainly would make many conservative heads explode.
And, to forestall the inevitable 'so would making her president" rejoinders, that's true, but she can do far less damage on the SC. One thing SC justices can't do, for example, is start wars.
Could we not refer to Hillary as The Monster, people? Particularly in a thread where we are discussing party unity.
Matilde,
As far as I am concerned, any party unity that does not include a consensus acceptance of the obvious fact that Clinton is a monster is not worth having.
"Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio together have 68 electoral votes, or 1/4 of the votes needed to win. That doesn't even count Arkansas, Tennessee and West Virginia (another 23 electoral votes) that have a much better chance of going for Clinton than Obama. Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa together have 35 electoral votes."
But no Democrat is going to win Florida, Tennessee or West Virginia. And Obama and Clinton are running the same against McCain in Ohio and Pennsylvania. So that leaves Arkansas as the only real "she'll win it, he won't" state out there.
Compare that to the four you mention (all of which he'd win but she wouldn't), PLUS Washington, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada and Michigan -- all of which he'd win but she wouldn't (though Michigan only because the African-American vote would be disproportionately low in virtually any conceivable scenario where she wins the nomination). PLUS he would have a reasonable shot in Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina and Nebraska, but she wouldn't.
The math just doesn't work for Clinton. She has to hold too many states in the Midwest and Pacific Northwest where McCain would be favored, and then pick up Ohio -- and I actually think it would be easier for her to accomplish the latter than the former. Obama can actually afford to lose the one Democratic state that might look bad for him in the general, even if the polls don't show it (Pennsylvania) -- she cannot.
Reality Man:
I don't think you are an idiot. I just don't agree with you. Isn't the message from Barack Obama that we should be able to disagree about politics without being disagreeable? Right now you don't seem to be behaving in that spirit.
As for Pennsylvania, the realclearpolitics average has Clinton outperforming Obama against McCain there.
Check for yourself if you'd like:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com
So what you said just wasn't factually correct. That said, I prefer to look at the underlying strengths and weaknesses of each candidate and see where those differences are likely to play out by November in different states. It doesn't really matter what voters are saying in March, after all, it matters what they will say in November.
The Democrats are not likely to win any southern states in 2008 of Obama is the nominee. If Obama did win Virginia it would be because of strength in the north-eastern suburbs of DC, not because of African Americans. Clinton is going to win Arkansas if she is the nominee. Arkansas and Tennessee (the states she would be stronger in) have among the lowest percentage of African Americans in the South.
Clinton does have a much better chance in West Virginia than Barack Obama. Her husband carried the state twice, and Al Gore narrowly lost it in 2000. According to Survey USA Clinton would win West Virginia by 5% while Obama would lose by 18%. The average on fivethirtyeight.com has Clinton up 1.4% against McCain, and Obama down 14.6%. That couldn't be a starker difference. Once again, if you don't believe me, check for yourself.
Are you even interested in facts? Or just going on an anti-Clinton diatribe?
Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, I just think Clintons overall appeal would be more helpful in achieving 270 electoral votes.
Okay, even I can appreciate the notion of Clinton on the SC; it certainly would make many conservative heads explode.
It's an incredibly stupid idea. The most liberal member of the Supreme Court was appointed by a frigging Republican and he's the one we'd likely have to replace next - with HRC, a moderate/centrist whose most notable stances have been taken against individual rights???
And the reason Stevens is the most liberal jurist on the court is because Clinton's husband refused to push for any actual liberals when he had the opportunity to appoint. And know why he refused to push for 'em? Because he lost the legislative Democratic majority '94!
Here's a thought for the future of the Clintons: how about a well-deserved retirement? They've done enough damage for two lifetimes.
Joe:
There is no evidence he would win Michigan but she wouldn't. Clinton won't lose Washington State either. She has as good a shot as him in New Mexico and Nevada, and Missouri. She has a better shot than him in Florida.
Finally, Obama is NOT going to win North Carolina, Nebraska, and probably not Virginia.
Actually, it might be a good exercise to run the numbers. Start with the Kerry states as a base. Giving Clinton the benefit of the doubt but not Obama, I've got:
Clinton: Add Ohio, Arkansas. Subtract Oregon (but not Washington), Wisconsin (but not Minnesota), New Hampshire (but not Michigan). She ends up with 256. L-O-S-E-R.
Obama: Add Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Iowa, Virginia (but not Missouri, North Carolina or Nebraska). Subtract Pennsylvania. He ends up with 268, and we're off the the House.
Shorter Tim K: I pay no attention to polls in March, except when they support my candidate.
Tim, look. I think that supporting the monster is reprehensible. But hey, if you are the kind of guy who likes killing brown people from other countries in support of American hegemony, has a Nixonian concept of presidential power, and doesn't mind race baiting, fine, Clinton's your candidate and nothing's gonna change your mind. And you know, human nature being what it is, given your atatchment to The Monster, I'm sure that you have really have convinced yourself that she will be the better candidate in November.
But really your tortured special pleading on her behalf is increasingly laughable, and most likely is no longer convincing even to fellow Clintonoids, let alone to people who haven't drank the koolaid.
If Clinton continues in her full-frontal assault on Obama's electability, and succeeds, either by destroying him so badly that the supers do give her the nomination, or fails just enough so that he wins the nomination but is crippled as a candidate...
yeah, that will tear the party apart.
As for the notion that Obama has to worry about Clinton supporters defecting...that's a false equivalence. Sure, Clinton has some hardcore supporters who will be very upset if/when she finally bows out (Hillaryis44...), but one need only look at the number of small donors, volunteers, support level at caucuses, etc, to see which of the two has a bigger contingent of strongly-invested backers.
Which candidate is famed (and rightly so) for bringing new voters to the polls, and new people into the Democratic party?
When you look at those questions, and answer them honestly, it should be clear that whatever effect there is in terms of angered supporters abandoning the party, it would be much more likely to be significant should Obama supporters leave than should Clinton supporters.
And lastly, none of that includes the point others have made, mainly: Obama is currently winning the nomination legitimately, while Clinton's only paths to the nomination at this point are either illegitimate or involved the personal destruction of a wildly popular politician. That is, the above dynamics are most-likely mitigated by an Obama victory (which will almost-definitely come hand-in-hand with clear edges in both the popular vote and the pledged delegate count), whereas those same dynamics will most likely be exacerbated by a Clinton victory (as that would most likely come about in spite of deficits in both the pledged delegate count and popular vote totals)
That's a serious concern, and dismissing it as infantile Obama supporters crying and taking their proverbial ball home is...well...just an infantile way of sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending like it'd be OK for Clinton to continue on this path, either ethically or politically. And it's not. It's morally dubious and political suicide.
Joe:
270 in needed to win the White House, not 268.
Giving Barack Obama Virginia is cooking the books. It's a long shot.
Taking away Michigan and Washington state is a stretch.
How long has it been since feminist leaders were relevant?
You really are all over the place Tim. First she's going to win Tennessee and keep onto the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest, yet Obama won't win in Virginia and can't bring more Midwestern states like Kansas into his column? Nice try, but no cigar. The vote was too close for comfort in the UM and the PN back in 2004 and Clinton is the nominee I could see throwing them away. That's what happens when a candidate tells states they don't count. Also, Obama has just begun campaigning in PA while Clinto has been there before for Bill. Your analysis only makes sense if there is a high African-American turnout in enough states under Clinton that go for her, which is definitely not a given anymore. Even where that population is small (TN), you still need it as a Democrat to win. If Ford couldn't win there against a crazy person while maintaining African-American support, how is Clinton going to win there? She's not likely to pick up more than one white voter there for every black voter she loses there. If you don't get that people just plain don't like her, you're just masturbating in a fantasy land.
Feminism is as feminism does. HRC does not meet that threshold.
First wave? Second wave? All this 52-year old woman wants is to wave Miss Hillary goodbye. I fully expect to see her faint and show us her antebellum petticoats before all this is over.
She's run a lousy campaign ... ineffectual and toxic. This country will see a woman President in future. That person will have studied this particular campaign in order to determine what not to do en route to the White House. Time to throw the baggage out.
She's not going to get West Virginia or Tennessee vs. McCain, so you can give up that fantasy.
Exactly-- Al Gore was an amazingly popular rep and senator from TN for a decade and a half and still lost the state by 3%. Kerry lost it by 14%. McCain is far more popular than GWB is here. Neither Clinton nor Obama will take TN, period. If she lost by two fewer points in a double-digit trouncing, who the hell cares? TN is far less fertile ground for national Dems than states farther west, as evidenced by it being the party's only Senate pickup failure in 2006. Sure, it's somewhat racist, but it's also solidly god/guns/gays territory that has so far not been as frustrated by GOP shenanigans as some other deep-red states.
That person will have studied this particular campaign
And math. Hopefully math.
shorter Tim K:
I'm going to simply assert that Clinton is stronger because she's stronger in the states I say she is, and my assertions will carry more weight than anyone else's.
"There is no evidence he would win Michigan but she wouldn't. Clinton won't lose Washington State either. She has as good a shot as him in New Mexico and Nevada, and Missouri. She has a better shot than him in Florida.
Finally, Obama is NOT going to win North Carolina, Nebraska, and probably not Virginia."
According to the most recent SUSA state polls (3/6):
Florida: Clinton +9. Note that Obama is also +2, so I think this poll has a bit of a Dem bias. With Florida trending conservative and a very popular Republican governor, I don't see either candidate winning. This is especially true if black support softens (vis a vis 2000 and 2004), as will be likely if Clinton wins the nomination.
Michigan: You are right that the polls show no difference in Obama or Clinton vs. McCain. However, as I said, I suspect that softening African-American support will kill her chances in the state.
Missouri: Same as Michigan.
Nebraska: SUSA has Obama down by 3. Also keep in mind that Obama very well could lose the state but get 1-2 EVs based on the way Nebraska assigns them.
Nevada: The SUSA poll has Obama tied with McCain, and Clinton down by 8.
New Mexico: The SUSA poll has Obama up by 7, and Clinton tied.
North Carolina: SUSA has Obama down by 2.
Virginia: SUSA has Obama tied.
Washington: The SUSA poll has Obama up by 14, and Clinton down by 2.
Also, shame on you Tim K for threadjacking the feminism thread!
You want an idea of what the Clinton general campaign would look like, just look at how she's handled this primary. She had the greatest institutional advantages of anyone who wasn't an incumbent or the incumbent's outgoing VP. Now she's losing to a guy with a funny name nobody heard of before 2004 who had to build his ground game from scratch against the establishment candidate. Guess what, when you have to start arguing that a Soviet-style ballot should count, you've lost. Only someone who was politically incompetent would be in this position after starting from where she did.
BTW: Ben Nelson said one of the reasons he endorsed Obama is that his office's internal polling suggests Obama will win, possibly 2 congressional districts, which is, I believe, how they apportion EC votes.
And while polling this far out might be "meaningless", it sure carries a hell of a lot more weight than baseless assertions that are nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions at this point.
The fact that 50-state matchup polling, most of which is being done in states where these candidates have already campaigned, generally matches up with the opinions of Obama supporters and flies in the face of Tim K's assertions certainly isn't definitive.
But it give our argument a little more weight
"270 in needed to win the White House, not 268."
Sorry, meant to type 269 (the correct number when you add CO, NM, NV, IA and VA but subtract PA). As I said, that puts the election in the house.
"Taking away Michigan and Washington state is a stretch."
That's why I didn't do it. Though thinking about it, I really think that Clinton would lose the state.
I can't express my distate enough for the mindless prediction circle jerk that Tim K. starts in every thread but it is important to remind casual onlookers that Obama plans on campaigning in states he may lose versus HRC not even taking them seriously IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY!
Who the hell knows who will win what states but it's certainly better to have tried and failed, but helped downticket races, than to have never tried at all and shown disdain and dismissal for them
This is from the article:
"The fact is, some of the most incisive feminist writers and effective feminist activists - people like Katha Pollitt, Frances Kissling and Eve Ensler, among many others - are backing Obama."
So, can we stop talking about those horrid old rigid feminist hags? Nothing like perpetuating a stereotype, eh? I've seen repeated elswhere the notion that the older feminism was "angry and bitter."
Um...to BE feminist in the 60's and 70's was to be automatically labeled "angry and bitter." (People weren't uniformly accepting of women's rights in those days.)
So now that label is taken to be the reality of those times?
My daughter doesn't face the same sexist world that I had to deal with at her age, but she still faces a sexist world...and she supports Obama.
People are going to support whichever candidate they believe will work in their best interests. Feminism is hardly the only reason women support Hillary!
This is from the article:
"The fact is, some of the most incisive feminist writers and effective feminist activists - people like Katha Pollitt, Frances Kissling and Eve Ensler, among many others - are backing Obama."
So, can we stop talking about those horrid old rigid feminist hags? Nothing like perpetuating a stereotype, eh? I've seen repeated elswhere the notion that the older feminism was "angry and bitter."
Um...to BE feminist in the 60's and 70's was to be automatically labeled "angry and bitter." (People weren't uniformly accepting of women's rights in those days.)
So now that label is taken to be the reality of those times?
My daughter doesn't face the same sexist world that I had to deal with at her age, but she still faces a sexist world...and she supports Obama.
People are going to support whichever candidate they believe will work in their best interests. Feminism is hardly the only reason women support Hillary!
This is from the article:
"The fact is, some of the most incisive feminist writers and effective feminist activists - people like Katha Pollitt, Frances Kissling and Eve Ensler, among many others - are backing Obama."
So, can we stop talking about those horrid old rigid feminist hags? Nothing like perpetuating a stereotype, eh? I've seen repeated elswhere the notion that the older feminism was "angry and bitter."
Um...to BE feminist in the 60's and 70's was to be automatically labeled "angry and bitter." (People weren't uniformly accepting of women's rights in those days.)
So now that label is taken to be the reality of those times?
My daughter doesn't face the same sexist world that I had to deal with at her age, but she still faces a sexist world...and she supports Obama.
People are going to support whichever candidate they believe will work in their best interests. Feminism is hardly the only reason women support Hillary!
"Virginia, on the other hand, hasn't voted for the Democratic nominee since Truman . . . ."
Tim K, LBJ took the Old Dominion in '64.
Hey, I'm not sure where DivGuy got the idea that I ever said I "don't want to say I'm pro-choice." Seriously, I think she's confusing me with someone else, because I have never, ever been anything but passionately pro-choice. I mean, I used to do clinic defense before homeroom when I was in high school! I'm writing a book about the global battle for reproductive rights!
Also, Tim, there aren't any superdelegates to throw it to her when she comes in second place in the general. I hope you folks do the math better on the general than the primary if you do manage to steal the nomination.
I tend to discount poll results almost entirely at this point, even though, vis a vis the Clinto/Obama battle, they tend to support his electability more than hers.
Poll trends, however, do have some value, in terms of telling us a little bit about how voters are perceiveing the candidates on a day to day basis. Of course, it's easy to fall into the trap of comparing apples to oranges.
But the dailey tracking polls from Rasmussen, whatever you think about their overall accuracy, are revealing in terms of what they say about shifts over the last two weeks.
What they show is that, at least so far (and yes, this is somewhat inconsistant with some of my thinking, I admit), the general elction polling shows a virtual tie for both matchups, with a statistically insignificant edge to McCain, virtually unchanged in the past two weeks. So the Dem smashup hasn'tt hurt them, yet, in general election polling.
But the Dem head to head polling over the past two weeks shows a dramatic shift to Obama. So maybe there is hope for the Dems, and for our polity, after all.
The party will not be torn apart unless the nominee is perceived as having cheated or broken the rules to receive the nomination. If that were to happen, the party would indeed be torn apart.
It doesn't really matter what voters are saying in March
Ahh, Tim K. Tim K., Tim K., Tim K. - so now ALL the primary voters are insignificant, even in the states that Hillary won.
Here's why they matter: Hillary, just like Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Joe Biden, will not be the nominee of the Democratic party because of what "voters are saying in March" and February, and January.
The sooner the Clintons and their supporters understand basic math, the better. Of course, since the new strategy is to tear down Obama and weaken him against McCain so that she can run again in 4, rather than 8, years, math is not the issue. Just blind ambition.
She really, really needs to try to stop proving Samantha Power right.
Also - and this is as true of myself as it is about anyone here - we have allowed the Clintons, and the media, which is perfectly willing for their own reasons to go along with her pretense that she still has a shot at the nomination, to get into our heads to a tremendous extent. Clinton is desperate, and I think most voters, and the superdelegates, see that. It's going to be an ugly couple of months, Clinton may well do real damage to Obama's electibility, and there IS a real danger of the party splintering, but we are almost certainly going to wake up several months from now with Obama as our nominee, and a still competative race with McCain.
The way that Clinton has been shooting herself in the foot lately, I wouldn't even totally discount Obama winning PA. If THAT happens, then the steady trickle of superdelegates announcing support for Obama will become a flood, and at that point even The Monster will most likely reluctantly bow out.
Henderstock:
I stand corrected. Indeed Johnson did win Virginia in 1964, although 2008 is not going to see a Democratic victory of that magnitude.
I'll be very frank and say there is no way of knowing for sure which candidate would do better in most of the states we have mentioned. When it comes to states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Missouri we are all basing our predictions on assumptions about which groups will or will not abandon which candidate. We honestly do not know for sure.
I think it is fair to say that Obama appears stronger in the upper-midwest states of Wisconsin, Minnesota and Iowa. He also appears stronger in upper pacific states of Oregon and Washington. I could also see him being more competitive in Colorado and Virginia, although I'm not convinced he could actually win them. The idea that any Democrat is going to win the Dakotas, Nebraska or Kansas is just absurd. I don't care what Senator Nelson's internal polling is saying.
It is also fair to say that Clinton brings Arkansas into the win column, and is stronger than Obama in Florida. Clinton also has comparative strength in the border states of West Virginia and Kentucky, and Ohio.
At least I make an attempt at even-handedness by acknowledges Barack Obama's clear advantages, while many of you are blinded by faith.
ClaireA--Good post. I agree that "angry and bitter" have accomplished quite a bit. And are often the proper response. Sometimes the only response.
I applaud Sen. Clinton for giving it a go. I've been pretty disappointed in her performance though. Her tactics have been both obvious and deplorable and that's not a good combo. Her smarmy routine hasn't help her and manages to only narrowly avoid being bad for the cause because she's a unique creature.
The thunderous Ferraro climax on the heels of the despicable CIC moment was too much for this old dame.
It's like her campaign staff has cracked open their psych 101 textbooks to bone up on Carl Jung. I'm not too keen on that as a means of getting over.
"At least I make an attempt at even-handedness by acknowledges Barack Obama's clear advantages, while many of you are blinded by faith.
Posted by Tim K | March 14, 2008 2:40 PM"
*rolls eyes*
Yeah, whatever, keep telling yourself that. Did anyone here say any of this is guaranteed? Nope. Stuff like that last line are why people think you're a jackass and no one likes you. But go ahead playing the martyr so you can feel sorry for yourself and blame the fact no one likes you on everyone else, just like your candidate. Also, you don't need to "win Nebraska," you just need to win part of Nebraska to get some of their ECV. The idea that Clinton can win in Kentucky, West Virginia and probably Ohio vs. McMaverick (C), to use your phrase, "just absurd."
At least I make an attempt at even-handedness by acknowledges Barack Obama's clear advantage
Tim K, the problem with that, and this time I am not being snarky or gratuitously insulting, you do that about once every 40 posts, while in the intervening 39 posts you put a maximalist, and incredible, pro-Clinton spin on the race. If every one of your comments was as reasonable as your 2:40 post, people would likely still disagree with you, but you wouldn't get called a troll and worse.
LarryM and you are NEVER even-handed. Absolutely never. So once every 40 posts is better than NEVER.
Most Obama supporters here never have a good thing to say about Senator Clinton, even implicitly. And just as often one goes off the reservation and talks about crazy conspiracies.
You call her a MONSTER! You've lost the right to be lecturing anyone.
Reality Man:
The idea that somebody with your lousy attitude would ever call somebody else a "jackass" with a straight face is the height of audacity.
I'm obviously not a martyr, I'm just out-number 20 to 1 here. That's fine, but don't pretend this is an objective audience or that you have an open mind about any of this.
You literally couldn't be more slanted if you tried your best.
I'm not sure where DivGuy got the idea that I ever said I "don't want to say I'm pro-choice."
My guess is that he has you confused with Amy Sullivan, for some reason.
Tim K,
You conflate two seperate issues - feelings about the candidates themselves, which, by their very nature, can't be entirely objective, and statements about horse race issues, which, if peopel are fairminded, can be.
My comment applied to your horse race commentary (which is, afterall, 95% of what you write).
As for myself, first of all, my rant posts, which are about 40% of my posts, don't have the pretense of objectivity which your posts have. Secondly, I've never pretended to be commenting "objectively" about the Monster herself. I mean, I think I'm right, but I recognize that I'm subjective on the issue.
But when I do get out of rant mode, and talk about horse race issues, I like to think that I approach objectivity much more closely than you do. But them, that's a pretty low bar.
Though I do appreciate your implicit acknowledgement that the vast majority of your comments amount to unobjective pro-Clinton spin.
And while we are on the subject, the point isn't really whether I have "right" to "lecture" anyone. I could be the biggest, least objective asshole in the world, but that doesn't mean that I'm wrong about your comments.
I do wonder why you keep it up. You aren't convincing anyone (though honestly more objectivity wouldn't change that most likely). I know whay I do (I mean, I probably shouldn't, I do have stuff I should be doing), venting and infuriating Clinton supporters.
LarryM:
95% of this contest is a horse race. Their difference on the issues are marginal.
"Rant posts" - as you call them - are just noise.
Of course my opinions amount to pro-Clinton spin. At least, unlike some people, I'm honest about that. Look, allow me to be completely frank. There are good arguments for both candidates. But I happen to like and respect Senator Clinton and President Clinton, and I also think she is the best bet with in November. Not only that, I think she is best prepared for the office.
I'm not going to comment on a blog where 90% of posters are pro-Obama and simply add to the same pro-Obama arguments that are already made ad nauseum. That wouldn't be adding a single thing to the discussion. Not only that, I'd be lying because I don't believe them.
I respect everyone's opinions here except for the opinions that include conspiracy theories, vicious rumor mongering, and calling people "Monster" and other names.
It's time to break out the popcorn and enjoy the cancer of identity politics play out in the most destructive manner in the Democrat Party.
Neither Hillary or Obama would have been taken seriously as a Republican candidate by Republicans. Both have less qualifications for office of successful military service, executive experience than any previous President. They exist as Frontrunners because one is The Woman Who's Time Has Come, the other as the non-threatening cuddly race-transforming sorta Black Man.
Older women are bitter that younger women believe females are Less Entitled than blacks in Democrat affirmative action voting. White ethnics and Latinos resent that blacks always vote 90-95% for the NAACP, old bull endorsed black candidate and thus keep black politicians in power in areas they have become a minority in from the lopsided black vote - but if whites and Latinos and Asians vote for their own kind, or ever reject the black candidate by 90-95% margins, Leftist Democrat activists, liberal Jews, and blacks condemn their voting like that as "unacceptably racist".
And the Obama forces believe that the "Movement" of Obama as moral redeemer and Black Messiah is permanent, that he will always be so inexperienced and untested and duch hard choices that he will continue to be the blank slate to be all things to all idealist liberals. And he is more entitled than a woman because blacks collectively, "have suffered more". And he has all those activist caucus votes and huge victories in Republican States while Hillary just carries the states where the Dems get their big vote, as well as all the critical swing states.
Yep, this is enjoyable. Pass the popcorn. As I said to a black pal nearly 20 years ago when Brother Jesse was running - identity politics are just swell - but just wait until two equally (un)qualified Dems square off for a big office, even the Presidency on equal "aggrieved" claims they are entitled to, or so they think. The Dems legitimized the idea of voting for a candidate because they were a "black, first and foremost", a "woman standing for all women of her identity and goals, first and foremost" or maybe a Latin will have the same thing in Florida or Cali against a black for a long-black held seat. Now it's happened and the hatred between the "equally entitled by race and gender" civil war is underway.
Enjoy!
Tim K,
Not sure why I'm even trying here - if you are going to listen to anyone, it clearly won't be me. But here goes, one last try.
No one expects you to make arguments you don't believe in, and no one can be ENTIRELY objective. But your occasional posts where you admit that both candidates have a decent shot, but both have their weaknesses - your apparent real beliefs - just make it clear that your other posts are not merely self delusion, but actively dishonest.
Other people, myself included, may make bad arguments, either honestly or dishonestly, but I don't think anyone else has managed to so clearly demonstrate knowing dishonesty in support of their candidate as you have.
LarryM:
If you've read my posts carefully I've never said Obama doesn't have a decent shot. Never. I've never said or implied that Obama is going to be crushed by 20 points in the general election. What I have said consistently is that I believe Obama is the riskier candidate with more of an upside and more of a downside than Clinton. I think Clinton has a more narrow trade range and is more likely to win for sure in a close race. This I have said consistently all along. Of course I am not going to spend my time making other people's argument for them. The fact I admit there are opposing arguments on both sides does not make me dishonest for not parroting them when dozens and dozens of other people here from Reality Man, to Craig to DTM, and the list goes on, will do it instead. That's not dishonest, it's just recognizing reality.
When you have a political debate you aren't required to make the other person's arguments for them. And you're definitely not required to be even-handed when nobody else tries to be.
This country will see a woman President in future. That person will have studied this particular campaign in order to determine what not to do en route to the White House. Time to throw the baggage out.
Are people going to accuse me of being both racist and sexist if I speculate that HRC might end up being the female candidate's equivalent of Jesse Jackson-- that is, a contender with real strengths but also serious weaknesses, who, in the end, was too tied up with 'identity' politics to win? We may need a 'post gender' candidate, in the same way Obama is perceived as a 'post racial' candidate.
Persia:
Not racist or sexist, just wrong.
Jesse Jackson was not a serious candidate for president and never had any chance of winning either time he ran. He was a token with views out of the mainstream who could never have been elected to the presidency. Neither Obama or Clinton can be compared to Jesse Jackson in that sense.
It's also premature to assume that Barack Obama is going to be able to overcome identity politics himself. This recent controversy with his radical pastor Mr. Wright shows he may not be perceived the "post-racial" candidate by most voters by the time this is done.
Remember, most voters are not affluent liberals or college kids.
And the hijack continues... this wasn't supposed to be a thread about delegate math.
As far as feminism is concerned, like Jen and others, it is complicated for me, too. I am a woman scientist, and know that is only possible because of the actions of older feminists. I am also old enough to have experienced sexism and misogyny when I was much younger.
But the thing is, I just want freedom and equality. I'm not a female partisian. In fact, I can't stand identity politics. Plus, it has been YEARS since I've had to personally deal with either sexism or misogyny. I feel free and equal. The world has changed. So, frankly, I would never vote for a candidate, just because she was a woman or man or black or white. I think that is just wrong.
Persia -- Bingo! Thank you. Great insight into the conundrum.
The idea that any Democrat is going to win the Dakotas, Nebraska or Kansas is just absurd.
I'm not sure about Nebraska or Kansas, but you'll have to talk to Byron Dorgan, Tim Johnson, Stephanie Herseth, Kent Conrad, and Earl Pomeroy about the Dakotas. Seriously Tim, if a Democrat is incapable of winning the Dakotas, how do you explain that 5/6 of their Congressional delegation (6/6 before Daschle lost) is Democratic? The RIGHT Democrat can win the Dakotas.
Comments closed March 28, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
For the life of me, I don't know why the feminist movement didn't abandon both Clinton's ten years ago.
Posted by right | March 14, 2008 10:33 AM