Intersectional

Linda Hirshman's done a lot of interesting work, but here she is again with yet another tiresome and reductive article about how young women who are supporting Obama are betraying all that is right and good, this time with the posited reason being "mommy issues." Courtney Martin and Dana Goldstein have some smart responses, but it occurs to me to add that there seems to be something unusually mind-fogging about the prospect of a generational divide.

It's not, after all, as if every over-30 woman in America is voting for Hillary Clinton. If you're a woman, and you're also an executive at nuclear power company, you're probably going to find a lot to like about John McCain. African-American women of all ages tend to support Obama, though that wasn't always the case. Women, like men, participate in a variety of practical identities any one of which might seem more significant at the moment. Obama's base of support is younger, blacker, maler, and better-educated than is Clinton's. But obviously if his support was limited to young, male, African-American college graduates he'd be hopelessly far behind -- his candidacy is viable because many, many people who only share some of the characteristics of the ur-Obamafan have a tendency to support him.

Comments

As I noted before, there were TONS of women --of all ages -- at the Obama speech here in Paoli. And that was more of a local neighborhood thing than the city-wide rally in Philadelphia.

Posted by Don Williams | April 22, 2008 8:30 AM

Michael Moore endorses Obama
Fresh off the wires today, filmmaker Michael Moore is endorsing Barack Obama for president:

I want to say a word about the basic decency I have seen in Mr. Obama. Mrs. Clinton continues to throw the Rev. Wright up in his face as part of her mission to keep stoking the fears of White America. Every time she does this I shout at the TV, "Say it, Obama! Say that when she and her husband were having marital difficulties regarding Monica Lewinsky, who did she and Bill bring to the White House for 'spiritual counseling?' THE REVEREND JEREMIAH WRIGHT!"

But no, Obama won't throw that at her. It wouldn't be right. It wouldn't be decent. She's been through enough hurt. And so he remains silent and takes the mud she throws in his face.

That's why the crowds who come to see him are so large. That's why he'll take us down a more decent path. That's why I would vote for him if Michigan were allowed to have an election.

Full Text

I don't care what anyone says -- in the primaries, this will help him, if anything.

Posted by Angellight | April 22, 2008 8:37 AM

Don Williams:
You are just down the road from me. It's really a small, small world!!

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 22, 2008 8:37 AM

As a mid-40s, lifelong feminist, I am getting frustrated with the failure of these older, Hillary-supporting women to ask this basic question: what has Hillary Clinton done for women?

Seriously. She was the hatchet-lady who attacked her husband's former lovers. She is running on her husband's legacy of eliminating supports for poor mothers. Please, somebody tell me how she became the feminist candidate.

This is why the older generation of feminists look like dinosaurs. The rest of us are concerned about real women's lives.

Posted by MOTC | April 22, 2008 8:40 AM

Isn't Hirshman the one who was arguing that women who decide to stay home with their kids are committing gender treason, because they're not contributing to the overall success and visibility of women professionals?

Do you notice a certain pattern here? Women who make choices different from the ones Hirshman would like them to make must be deluded. The arrogance is breathtaking.

Posted by jbd | April 22, 2008 8:40 AM

As a mid-40s, lifelong feminist, I am getting frustrated with the failure of these older, Hillary-supporting women to ask this basic question: what has Hillary Clinton done for women?

Seriously. She was the hatchet-lady who attacked her husband's former lovers. She is running on her husband's legacy of eliminating supports for poor mothers. Please, somebody tell me how she became the feminist candidate.

This is why the older generation of feminists look like dinosaurs. The rest of us are concerned about real women's lives.

Posted by MOTC | April 22, 2008 8:41 AM

"As I noted before, there were TONS of women --of all ages -- at the Obama speech here in Paoli."

How stunning to learn Don Williams lives on the Main Line.

The trust fund scumbags of Philadelphia occupy those environs. Had trust fund scumbag, Matthew Yglesias, grown up in Philly, he would've been at the same Obama rally as you.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 8:43 AM

Didn't the former CEO of EBay(maybe she still is CEO) support Mittens Romney? Has she publicly switched to McBush yet? Besides, Hillary is all about herself. Do you really think she gives a damn about Women's Lib, except as a means of securing more votes?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 22, 2008 8:44 AM

The pollsters say Hillary has the support of the white Philadelphia suburbs --vice the more heavily Afro-American Philadelphia central core.

But I'm not seeing that, in my admittedly small samples. Canvassing door to door, i've heard support for about 10-15 voters for Obama for every one I hear for Hillary. Driving around, one sees lots more Obama signs than those for Hillary. This is on the Main Line about 16 miles out from Center City.

Although I was attacked by a Hillary Fury last night, in my own neighborhood. I was putting up the Obama flyers on Democratic houses. (I had a list --Kinda like the Democratic version of Passover.)

At one house, as I walked back to the driveway, I heard the front door slam behind me. A heavy set , late twenties woman resident stalked up to me, ripped the OBama flyer --not just in Half but into ..uh..eights -- threw the confetti into her trash can with scorn, snarled at me to not put any more trash on her door, said she was voting for Hillary and if Hillary didn't get the nomination in November, she was going to vote Republican.
hee hee hee

ah, the joys of campaigning. Also as much fun as turning the caffeine addicts --coming to the Starbucks at the Paoli Station for their morning fix --away from the parking lot in the hours before the Obama rally. Luckily they don't have two or three weeks in which to get their revenge.

Posted by Don Williams | April 22, 2008 8:46 AM

This election can quite rightly be spun completely positively: this fall either a woman or a black man will be a major-party candidate for President and may well be elected, and whichever it is, it will be for the first time in history. A very good thing.

But since they're running against each other, and since one of them has to lose, there's a risk of the opposite spin: by rejecting Hillary / Obama the Democrats have condemned woman / blacks to second-class status yet another time.

It's obvious that that's completely ridiculous and that it's toxic and destructive to think that way, especially since women and blacks are the Democrats' two most important constituencies. But Hirschman is not the first Hillary supporter to say that kind of thing. (I'm sure that there are plenty of people in the black community saying the same kind of thing regarding Obama, but I haven't heard them).

Democrats do have a gift for ruining a good thing, and let's hope that they don't end up doing it again this time.

Posted by John Emerson | April 22, 2008 8:47 AM

I look forward to "trust-fund Petey" explaining to us all how Hillary's comments this morning about "obliterating Iran" are consistent with progressive causes and Democratic ideals.

Posted by Jake | April 22, 2008 8:49 AM

Petey:
Learn more about the Philly area you nitwit!! Paoli isn't trust fund territory. The Main Line is closer in towards Philly. Paoli isn't considered the Main Line. Villanova, Bryn Mawr, Ardmore and Gladwnye are Main Line towns.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 22, 2008 8:49 AM

As an aside, don't forget that Obama's coalition also includes pretty much every sort of person in a very large chunk of our country ranging from the Midwest through the Pacific Northwest.

Anyway, I'm not sure there has been a group more ill-served by Clinton and her campaign than "second-wave feminists". Clinton really does have a lot of personal and political flaws, and she has run a very poor campaign as a result, one that is not only ineffective but also outright offensive to much of the Party. And yet many "second-wave feminists" seem to think they have no choice but to characterize any substantive criticisms of Clinton or her campaign as the product of sexist stereotypes. This blanket defense of Clinton is systematically alienating these "second-wave feminists" from younger women (and usually like-minded men) who perceive many of these criticisms as well-founded in Clinton's behavior.

Fortunately for these "second-wave feminists", I don't think all this is necessarily permanent. But the longer the Clinton campaign lasts, probably the longer it will take for these "second-wave feminists" to repair all the damage coming to Clinton's defense is causing them.

Posted by DTM | April 22, 2008 8:53 AM

Of course women can help elect Obama. He obviously must hope getting them to the polls doesn't involve "Drive two blocks north then turn east at the light, go a quarter mile and the polling location is on the southwest corner."

Posted by steve duncan | April 22, 2008 8:55 AM

Well, just as I would have guessed, except for angry Petey, 100% of the commenters here are absolutely, totally pro-Obama.

Me, I'll just be watching the PA election returns this evening. Maybe they'll also be 100% for Obama...but maybe not!

Posted by RKU | April 22, 2008 9:00 AM

Steve:
I live not too far from Don Williams. All I can say is that I have run into a lot of women that will be voting for Obama. I think a lot of them see right through Hillary for exactly the reasons DTM stated.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 22, 2008 9:00 AM

Someone forgot to tell Matt Y that only white women count as women as far as second wave feminists are concerned.

That same person forgot to tell the commenters here that merely voting for Obama raises your income level by 3000%, and grants you access to the infinitely funded 'Obama fund', this making everything Petey says true!

Posted by soullite | April 22, 2008 9:01 AM

This election can quite rightly be spun completely positively: this fall either a woman or a black man will be a major-party candidate for President and may well be elected, and whichever it is, it will be for the first time in history.

How come no one talks about the significance of McCain's candidacy for the vertically challenged geriatric crowd?

Posted by MS | April 22, 2008 9:01 AM

"Learn more about the Philly area you nitwit!!"

I know my Philly, you nitwit. I understand that if trust fund scumbag Matthew Yglesias had been born in Philly, he would've been a Gladwnye boy instead of a Paoli boy.

But the point remains. The Main Line scumbags are prime Obama territory. And that includes Paoli. They're down with bashing universal healthcare and calling the less fortunately born Democrats racist for voting their pocketbooks.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 9:40 AM

"As I noted before, there were TONS of women --of all ages -- at the Obama speech here in Paoli. And that was more of a local neighborhood thing than the city-wide rally in Philadelphia."

Posted by Don Williams
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately TONS of Midwestern housewives may actually only involve a quantity of 15-20 women. Obama will need more help than that.

Posted by steve duncan | April 22, 2008 9:44 AM

"Tiresome" is the right word for this kind of stuff. Mommy issues? Please. Does HRC remind me of my mother? In a word, no. She reminds me of a hologram. Or a really really lousy hangover.

The amount of BS we've had to endure this political season is truly one for the history books. My husband and I are floored by the polls focusing on beer drinkers and bowlers. Pretty sad.

Fortunately, HRC has proven herself to be such a unique whack job this season that I don't foresee any long term damage to other women running for the Presidency in future. She's turned out to be pretty much a one of a kind nightmare.

Posted by charlotte | April 22, 2008 9:50 AM

Confidence trickster Petey seems to be trying to recoup his potential InTrade losses by googlebombing and bullshitting about Philly. Oh dear.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 22, 2008 9:52 AM

Well, as Matthew has previously posted, people voting for Hillary are racists. But, by the same token, people voting for Obama are misogynists. So Hirshman is surely on to something that, by voting for Obama, you are perpetuating the misogynist patriarchical system that has dominated this country since its founding. Now, maybe you are OK with perpetuating the misogyny, but I guess Hirshman isn't.

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 10:01 AM

"Confidence trickster Petey seems to be trying to recoup his potential InTrade losses by googlebombing and bullshitting about Philly. Oh dear."

I've made more money betting Obama this year than betting Clinton.

Arbitrage is amoral. Political advocacy is moral.

Keeping the two separated is crucial for avoiding scumbaggery.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 10:05 AM

there has long been a bit of a competition on the left about who is more oppressed. This can play out in a certain envy by feminists of blacks whose consciousness of their 2d class status seems to run far deeper than women's. Liberal women voting for a man over a woman does cause older feminists a bit of distress on this count. Worse, working class and southern white men have decided that a white woman is preferrable to a black man, which seems to confirm that race really does trump gender in our culture.

in the end, i think it's unfair to harshly judge older feminists for their views on this. It's hard to describe the world they came of age in. There was a world of difference between being Laura Petrie in 1965 and Mary Richards in 1975. The older feminists paid some dues so that the next generation would not feel so oppressed. Having a woman president is a dream for them that they cannot be expected to easily give up.

but what do i know. I'm a white guy who'll vote for obama.

Posted by jim | April 22, 2008 10:09 AM

"Worse, working class and southern white men have decided that a white woman is preferrable to a black man, which seems to confirm that race really does trump gender in our culture."

Matthew would have you believe that has to do with racism, rather than the fact that Clinton is offering an economic program more amenable to the concerns of working class folks than Obama.

Matthew doesn't care much about the economic concerns of the working class. He's got an inheritance to manage.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 10:17 AM

Matt, it's time to start deleting Petey.

Posted by Bloix | April 22, 2008 10:21 AM

I'm a 58-year old lifelong feminist, and I voted for Obama (and contributed to his campaign) largely because he was right on the war from day one. I can't even imagine the kind of thinking that would decide that having someone with XX chromosomes in the White House was more important than good decisions about war and peace.

Posted by Anne E | April 22, 2008 10:37 AM

I think Hirschman sort of has a point that older women relate to Clinton more than younger women do, although to reduce this to "mommy issues" is absurd. But mainly, I still think older feminists cling to Hillary's candidacy because the chances of them seeing a female president elected in their lifetimes are getting smaller.

For one thing, they are products of a time when a woman being elected president was virtually impossible, so to see one elected within decades would represent tremendous progress. Those of us who have come of age more recently are used to some level of gender inequality in politics (and Clinton has obviously endured some sexist attacks from the media during this campaign), but there was never a time in our political memory when it was simply unthinkable to have a female president. The strength of Hillary's candidacy takes on a greater meaning in this historical context, but at the same time, the fact that younger people don't think they should vote for her just because she's a woman is a sign of the progress that has been made.

But it is also easier for younger women knowing that there will be another 6-8 presidents in their lifetimes as opposed to 2-3. As Obama has shown, a lot can happen in eight years, but at the moment there aren't any obvious choices to build on the progress Clinton's candidacy has made, unless Obama picks a female VP.

I would say the fact that Clinton has come this close is significant because the possibility of having a female president is more real, but Clinton herself hasn't done feminism many favors by running her campaign as poorly as she did. From the beginning I thought it would be better if the first female president wasn't the wife of a former president, but at this point, if the first female president wins by getting superdelegates to overturn Obama's primary victory (and frankly, part of the case for her is that she is more electable than the black guy), and this after she was supposed to be inevitable because of her husband, that wouldn't exactly be a strong victory for feminism. But I think MOTC makes the key point: if you are concerned about all women rather than just the one who would symbolize progress by being elected president, your priority at this point would be defeating McCain, not Obama.

Posted by ibid | April 22, 2008 10:41 AM

I'm a 40-ish woman who longs to see a woman in the White House, but not the one currently running. Feminism is one thing. Voting for the right person, right now is another.

Posted by tinare | April 22, 2008 10:59 AM

I'm a past-70 Caucasian woman. I and almost all of my peers in this age group are supporting Obama. We are sad that the first woman in our lifetimes who has a chance at the presidency has screwed up so badly.

Posted by Nora | April 22, 2008 11:01 AM

What Jim @ 10:09 a.m. said. I would also like to add that many of the older feminists feel like HRC is more qualified than Obama. This reminds them of what they have to go through in their careers where younger male colleagues were promoted over them. Now there is a problem with that analogy in that Obama is black.

Posted by Micheline | April 22, 2008 11:05 AM

What Jim @ 10:09 a.m. said. I would also like to add that many of the older feminists feel like HRC is more qualified than Obama. This reminds them of what they have to go through in their careers where younger male colleagues were promoted over them. Now there is a problem with that analogy in that Obama is black.

Posted by Micheline | April 22, 2008 11:08 AM

Confidence trickster Petey seems to be trying to recoup his potential InTrade losses by googlebombing

Oh. Now I get it.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 22, 2008 11:19 AM

I think you need to amend the "women older than 30" comment to "women older than 40" (or better yet, 45). This 40-yr-old (ugh) 7 Sisters grad voted for Obama, as did most GenX women I know. The generational divide that Hirshman has been capitalizing on for the past few years doesn't start w/ millennials--it includes Xers.

My 70+ mother (an early League of Women Voters member and ERA supporter), has always said that if a woman she could vote for ever ran for president, she'd do it. Hillary seems to fall under her definition, so everything else is put aside. That's your generational divide, right there.

Posted by Erika | April 22, 2008 11:21 AM

To a great extent, the simplistic use of categories ('women', 'young women', etc.) can be blamed on the misuse and misunderstanding of poll results. It happens everywhere and taints most of the discussion on network and cable news - and the recommendations of people like Mark Penn.

If a poll finds a slight difference in the level of support for something between two groups, the difference is exaggerated and becomes a Yes/No, On/Off distinction -- as though all of the one group supports and all of the other group opposes.

This kind of confusion leads campaigns to go after "the blue-collar" vote or the "soccer mom" vote. There is no such thing. Slight differences based on an artificial distinction can never get you very far; all you have to do is ask a different question, based on a different distinction, and you'll discover that your pitch (aimed at the first distinction) is going to fail as often as it succeeds. You go for the soccer mom vote but end up pissing off middle-child mothers who understand tax policy.

Posted by DNS | April 22, 2008 11:25 AM

To a great extent, the simplistic use of categories ('women', 'young women', etc.) can be blamed on the misuse and misunderstanding of poll results. It happens everywhere and taints most of the discussion on network and cable news - and the recommendations of people like Mark Penn.

If a poll finds a slight difference in the level of support for something between two groups, the difference is exaggerated and becomes a Yes/No, On/Off distinction -- as though all of the one group supports and all of the other group opposes.

This kind of confusion leads campaigns to go after "the blue-collar" vote or the "soccer mom" vote. There is no such thing. Slight differences based on an artificial distinction can never get you very far; all you have to do is ask a different question, based on a different distinction, and you'll discover that your pitch (aimed at the first distinction) is going to fail as often as it succeeds. You go for the soccer mom vote but end up pissing off middle-child mothers who understand tax policy.

Posted by DNS | April 22, 2008 11:26 AM

Isn't Hirshman the one who was arguing that women who decide to stay home with their kids are committing gender treason, because they're not contributing to the overall success and visibility of women professionals?

Actually, Hirshman makes the basically inarguable point that choosing traditional gender roles (quitting work or cutting back to focus on family & build a male partner's career, moving to the suburbs where life for women tends to be more constrained, etc.) reinforces the cultural power of... traditional gender roles, instead of, y'know, promoting gender equality. It's not a particularly controversial analysis in itself-- in a capitalist society, not working does tend to diminish an individual's status, and the shared/borrowed status of marriage is precarious at best-- but of course people don't like to hear it.

Posted by latts | April 22, 2008 11:32 AM

I note with interest that Petey will respond defiantly to many taunts, but will studiously ignore the sort exemplified by this from Jake:

I look forward to "trust-fund Petey" explaining to us all how Hillary's comments this morning about "obliterating Iran" are consistent with progressive causes and Democratic ideals.

Maybe he really is capable of feeling shame. Because the answer (much more in evidence in his posts a few months ago) seems to be, roughly, that bombing brown people, or threatening to bomb people, or broadcasting a willingness to bomb brown people, will give Democrats the 'tough guy' cover necessary to get elected and make UHC marginally more likely.

But don't call him racist!

Posted by Ryan | April 22, 2008 12:02 PM

Okay, I'll make this the required post questioning the feminist credentials of a woman who, after failing the DC Bar exam, ran back home to marry a man whose influence and networking skills landed her every job she's ever had.

Posted by Angry Sam | April 22, 2008 12:14 PM

Something I haven't seen mentioned much is what it would say about the Democratic party if, based on the superdelegate votes, it chose the candidate of the old, the less well-educated, and the economically downscale. Wouldn't a party concerned about its future want to support the candidate supported by the people who will have the most to offer the party in the future--the young, affluent, and well-educated? That's not to say we shouldn't care about the first groups or make policies to improve their lot, but to tie the party's future to them is another thing entirely.

Posted by THS | April 22, 2008 12:17 PM

I am 50 year old woman, a single parent in a profession that is notorious for the glass ceiling effect, and I just voted in Pa for Obama. I consider myself a feminist. Mine was not vote based on race or gender, but rather, based upon 1) the emergence of a remarkable politican who is trying to raise the level of discourse and 2) my disatisfaction with Senator Clinton as an old style pol who knows how to play the same old games, even as she encourages the media narrative that the boys are just "picking on a woman". She embarasses me.

Posted by cenpendem | April 22, 2008 12:31 PM

"Because the answer (much more in evidence in his posts a few months ago) seems to be, roughly, that bombing brown people, or threatening to bomb people, or broadcasting a willingness to bomb brown people"

I'd love to know how Obama has separated himself on foreign policy from Clinton. If Obama had opened up foreign policy space to the left of Clinton, this charge might begin to approach something interesting.

But in the race we're actually running, Obama strenuously avoids getting an inch to Clinton's left on foreign policy while happily getting a mile to her right on economic policy.

But, hey, all the Main Line scumbags in Gladwnye and Paoli love Obama, so who cares about policy?

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 12:36 PM

"Matt, it's time to start deleting Petey.

Posted by Bloix | April 22, 2008 10:21 AM"

Why? It's like watching Willard or Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, full of camp, self-hatred, projection, running away from cognitive dissonance and just plain madness. Petey's just bitter that he backed the candidate that could only get trust fund voters in Iowa despite going all out there, which meant that Petey doesn't actually know how to hitch his wagon to a class struggle of any real heft. He's like the last Trotskyite after international communism came to be ruled by Stalinists and Maoist. He somehow believes being for things working people are against, like mandates, because the research of people with trust funds says it's good policy makes him Norma Rae. That's why he never really answered people's doubts about Edwards really being a leftist populist after his history with the DLC and the likes of Feingold pointing out that Edwards's rhetoric didn't match his voting record. With the inability of the Edwards campaign to manifest itself as the dream of working people they were all waiting for, Petey has nothing left to live for and thus is just striking out like a bear caught in a bear trap before it finally succumbs to eating its own leg. In the end, his political convictions are hollow and more about identity than policy.

I was pretty young when Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, so it always confused me as I came into third and fourth wave feminism why Hillary Clinton was considered a feminist. Was it because she dissed baking cookies? Was it because so many men hated her? I would feel sorry for her when the likes of Matthews and Russert attacked her in sexist ways, but I could never figure out what was supposed to be there. After all, she spent a lot of time in the public eye attacking her husband's various mistresses as being liars and skanks. She also stayed married to a guy that obviously doesn't respect her or his daughter enough not to be a sleaze. A lot of her supporters are people I respect as feminists, especially Gloria Steinem, but after listening to so many feminist defenses of her, all I can come up is that she's a feminist because a lot of sexist pigs don't like her.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 12:56 PM

while happily getting a mile to her right on economic policy.

Specifics, Petey?

Posted by lemuel pitkin | April 22, 2008 12:56 PM

"Specifics, Petey?"

Willingness to adopt General Electric's line on Social Security over the Democratic Party's line: 100 yards.

Willingness to have Austan Goolsbee directing economic policy: 100 yards.

Willingness to bash universal healthcare, (let alone simply not supporting it, which would be bad enough): 1,560 yards.

I believe that's a mile.

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 1:04 PM

Pete, please keep it up. I had a tough day at work and the local crazy homeless guy isn't spitting at anyone tonight, so I need someone spinning out of control to keep me amused. You should get a patent on the bubble you live in that keeps competing information and narratives out that could collapse your oh-so fragile little world. You could make a lot of money selling it to neocons and Left Behinders.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 1:10 PM

"You should get a patent on the bubble you live in that keeps competing information and narratives out that could collapse your oh-so fragile little world."

I read both pro-Obama and pro-Clinton outlets, "Reality" Man. Why do I think the same doesn't apply to you?

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 1:14 PM

Petey: I believe that's a mile.

Petey: It must be hard being a Clinton supporter when basically no informed Democrats who aren't on her payroll support the Senator.

Link

Posted by hlah | April 22, 2008 1:18 PM

A mile is 1760 yards. This is the last nail in the coffin of Petey's credibility.

Posted by well | April 22, 2008 1:29 PM

I'd love to know how Obama has separated himself on foreign policy from Clinton.

It's Clinton who's been doing the separating on foreign policy, by repeatedly challenging him from a hawkish direction.

Meanwhile, your candidate yokes herself to union-busting Mark Penn and you're upset about *Austan Goolsbee*?? It is to laugh.

Really, it is all to laugh. I'd vote for either candidate in the general. Policy differences on health care *and* foreign affairs are real but modest. Composition of Congress will be decisive in determining the scope of the possible. But when it comes to health care Petey, for whatever reason, is all about the narcissism of small differences. I suspect it's just an excuse to fight other Democrats, which appears to be his true driving passion over and above attachment to any particular issue or candidate.

Posted by Ryan | April 22, 2008 1:50 PM

Just for the record, I don't think the primary reason Hillary Clinton does relatively well among white male Democrats in the South and Appalachians, but far less well among this group as you head into the Midwest and West, is because the white males in the former regions are racists and hence won't vote for Obama since he is black. Rather, I think white male Democrats in those particular regions are disproportionately voting for Hillary Clinton because they really liked Bill Clinton, and see her candidacy as an opportunity for a de facto third Clinton term.

And frankly, I find it baffling that more people don't make this point. But I guess a lot of people are caught in this mindset that if some group of people are voting for Clinton, it must be because they have found something about Obama they don't like, as opposed to actually having a reason to vote for Clinton.

Posted by DTM | April 22, 2008 1:57 PM

"I read both pro-Obama and pro-Clinton outlets, "Reality" Man. Why do I think the same doesn't apply to you?

Posted by Petey | April 22, 2008 1:14 PM"

For one thing, I do. For another, I just love how you no longer ever actually address the points anyone makes against any of your arguments. The fact that you are now translating deviations from the Petey orthodoxy of the day to mileage is just hilarious. Keep it up.

I just saw a drunk guy outside with his pants around his ankles trying to beat up three bouncers that were all bigger than him. Of course it reminded me of what Petey has become these days.

Posted by Reality Man | April 22, 2008 2:04 PM

I love how when certain women writers try to slam Obama and his supporters, they refuse to engage the ACTUAL reasons that people (male or female, young or old) are voting for Obama and rejecting hillary. So instead they make up their own reasons why people are rejecting Hillary.

#1 Young women are voting for Obama because they don't like their moms. It couldn't possibly be that they are disgusted with her cynical, race-baiting, Fox News style campaign, or that they see no reason to vote for someone who's only a candidate for president because of the accomplishments of her husband (real or imagined). It must be that they are deluded morons who don't realize how smart their mothers are.

#2Young women just think Obama is cute. It couldn't possibly be true that young women, who are, after all, young, are voting for the idealistic candidate who is promising fundamental change. It must be that they are just silly girls who don't know what's good for them(of course, considering that Linda Hirshman thinks that feminism means choosing what Linda Hirshman wants you to choose, this shouldn't shock).

#3 Men are voting for Obama because they are sexist. It couldn't possibly be that Hillary Clinton is a self-serving liar who voted to send our servicemen and women off to die in Iraq to help her political ambitions, and now claims that she "never would have gone into Iraq"(note to the Senator: when you vote for something, you are responsible for the consequences). It couldn't possibly be that she lied about S-Chip, the Family Medical Leave Act, Bosnia, Northern Ireland, etc. It couldn't possibly be that she brings up her gender and plays the victim at every opportunity, when it suits her. It must be that men are sexist.

#4 The patriarchial system has a double standard for women candidates. It couldn't possibly be true that Hillary was annointed the front runner (by the patriarchial establishment), had a huge money edge starting the race(raised by the establishment, from the establishment), and that the media spent all last summer and fall trashing her two main male rivals over haircuts and Obama's middle name and his supposed secret muslim-ness, while leaving Hillary alone(Rupert Murdoch even hosted a fund raiser for her!!). It couldn't possibly be true that a woman with no exprerience in elected office was handed a senate seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state where she had never lived, all on the basis of who her husband was. So now, when she is losing, the money is gone, and ABC's hatchet job didn't work, it must be that she was the outsider all along, being judged unfairly by the patriarchy (apparently, we only recently became aware of her gender).

In short, according to Linda Hirshman and Rebecca Traister and Joan Walsh and Emily Bazelon and Gloria Steinem and all the rest of them, nobody could possibly have good reasons for voting against Hillary or for Obama except gender. Nobody could possibly be disgusted or enraged at Hillary Clinton, except that she's a woman. Nobody could be impassioned by Obama's candidacy, or uplifted by the possibility of a new progressive era in this country, or turned off by a hypocritical liar who served on the board of wal-mart and raises money from Rupert Murdoch,etc. We're all stupid, delusional, sexist, mom-hating members of a cult of personality. At least in the minds of middle-aged female writers who are so scared of strong differences of opinion that they can only win an argument against the shadows fo straw men.

Posted by liquiditytrap | April 22, 2008 2:06 PM

I just want to echo that the strongest female Hillary support is in the Boomer crowd. There are certainly plenty of younger female Hillary supporters out there, but most of the Gen Xer's I know, male or female, are for Obama.

There certainly are some voters in the Greatest generation who are Obama supporters, too. For those voters, it matters that Obama has inspired younger voters. They worry about the future and want an involved younger electorate to pass the torch to.

Some Boomers, on the other hand, seem to be angry or threatened by younger generations that don't march to their tune. That seems to be especially true with second wave feminists. Its the same thing you see with some right-wing boomers. If you don't adhere exactly to their ideology and do things their way, you are the enemy.

Posted by Z | April 22, 2008 4:21 PM

What liquiditytrap said.

Posted by Client #11 | April 22, 2008 6:57 PM

To Joe Klein's Conscience:
Hi. Sorry for the delayed response. I worked on the campaign today, got home about 40 minutes ago, and just saw your post.

Yeah, that is weird. I live near Valley Forge Park -- our post office is Wayne. Paoli is about 3 miles to the southwest.

Posted by Don Williams | April 22, 2008 8:36 PM

Re Petey's comment "How stunning to learn Don Williams lives on the Main Line.

The trust fund scumbags of Philadelphia occupy those environs. Had trust fund scumbag, Matthew Yglesias, grown up in Philly, he would've been at the same Obama rally as you."
-----------
Poor Petey -- there's nothing more ridiculous than a dirty little plebian who talks about the worlds from which he is excluded. Shoving that grubby little nose up against the window can reveal only so much.

A hint, dear Peter. The Main Line was subdivided decades ago. The ..er.."trust fund scumbags" are generally either in the City or found south of the Main Line near Edgemont. The Radnor Hunt is having their races May 17, if you would like a closer look at your betters and if you can somehow raise $400. See https://www.radnorraces.org/tickets/ and
http://www.radnorraces.org/home.htm .

If you don't have the money, perhaps you could offer sordid sexual services in the stables. You might even get to keep a riding crop as a souvenir.

Posted by Don Williams | April 22, 2008 8:53 PM

Re Petey's comment "But, hey, all the Main Line scumbags in Gladwnye and Paoli love Obama "
-----------
Petey's deep sociological insights into the Philly suburbs might have more impact if he ever learned how to correctly spell Gladwyne.

It would be even nicer if he ever realized that Gladwyne is not Main Line. Old Maids Never Wed And Have Babies, Petey.

Posted by Don Williams | April 22, 2008 9:15 PM