A Woman Scorned

Excellent point from Frank Rich:

Now, there’s no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.

Exactly. In a country of 300 million people, there are bound to be some folks whose preference order is Clinton-McCain-Obama. And some of those people will be women. But the idea that Democratic women would defect en masse to the GOP in a fit of pique is a preposterous notion that seems to be founded on the underlying assumption that women can't respond to their political choices as rationally as men can. Needless to say, as Rich goes on to point out the thus-far available polling shows us the traditional gender gap where the party whose agenda is more favorable to the interests of women gets more support from women.

Comments

yes. this caricature demeans all of us. Clinton-supporters, of course. But also anyone who buys into this bull.

Posted by della Rovere | June 15, 2008 10:54 AM

And again, I think it's important to note that the vast majority of voters are not arguing this shit out on the blogosphere and are, by and large, the same people who'd said they'd be happy with either Obama or Clinton all along.

Posted by Persia | June 15, 2008 10:56 AM

Loved the Rich piece as well, but a tiny part of me wishes a leading female Clinton backer had written it. Anecdotally, though, I've canvassed some fiftysomething and sixtysomething white women, friends and acquaintances, all of whom voted enthusiastically for Clinton in their respective primaries; to a woman they all seemed thrilled to shift toward Obama for the general. No harm, no foul.

I also agree with Rich that Roberta McCain is very appealing; the GOP would do well to use her as much as they can.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | June 15, 2008 11:04 AM

We are at a very dangerous juncture in the nation's history. Democratic women are smart enough to know that another Republican president, packing the supreme court with yet another young, activist, Ultra-conservative Justice would lead to the end of their rights (including the right to choose) for the next 20-30 years. That's why the vast majority of them would not make the mistake of voting for McCain.

Posted by ff11 | June 15, 2008 11:30 AM

We are at a very dangerous juncture in the nation's history. Democratic women are smart enough to know that another Republican president, packing the supreme court with yet another young, activist, Ultra-conservative Justice would lead to the end of their rights (including the right to choose) for the next 20-30 years. That's why the vast majority of them would not make the mistake of voting for McCain.

Posted by ff11 | June 15, 2008 11:31 AM

But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost is itself a sexist stereotype.

Of course it is. But no one is suggesting that (at least not that I know of*).

What people *are* suggesting is that a significant number of Clinton primary voters will shift their support to McCain because. . . well, a significant number of Clinton primary voters have said they will shift their support to McCain.

"the underlying assumption that women can't respond to their political choices as rationally as men can"

I do not and will not assume that women can not make rational choices, but there sure was a heaping helping of irrationality in the pro-Hillary camp: Obama flipped Clinton off on video, Obama's use of the "everything but the kitchen sink" metaphor was a suggestion that Clinton belonged in the kitchen; Obama is an America-hating Muslim Marxist terrorist; John McCain is a good and noble man who would never, for example, leave his first wife because a car accident made her less pretty, then call his second wife a "trollop", etc.

If a group of voters are highly irrational, and happen to be women, I know enough about basic statistics to realize that one doesn't necessarily cause the other. Never the less, I am worried that in a nationwide election, where a few voters per precinct can swing the outcome of a tight contest, some of those voters could mean the difference between 4 more years of what we've had for the past 8, and something else.

*I admit, I spend almost zero time paying attention to "talking heads and Republican operatives".

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | June 15, 2008 11:55 AM

The essential point is undeniable, but Rich is not the proper messenger. The man is a fraud, and he's one of Bush's enablers, since he helped "peddle the fables", the lies about Gore that made it possible to steal Florida and the White House. [dailyhowler.com]. Just because progressives like what Rich and Maureen Dowd say on any given day, they should never forget that these people have been major architects of our present disaster, to say nothing of their dishonest treatment of Pres. Clinton. Note how Rich can't bring himself to mention Chris Matthews or any other misogynistic bigot currently appearing in the media, especially the clowns on MSNBC. Today Dowd even had the nerve to wonder aloud how the French, in bidding goodbye to Bush, could understand how we ever got into this mess; probably because the French haven't been reading Maureen Dowd and her psychotic rants against 'girly-man' Democrats for the past twenty years. You might want to check out the fearless guardian of truth Frank Rich who you read on Sundays and contrast him with the pathetic stooge who laughs at Imus' lame sexist and racist jokes. Nothing has changed since the phony media frenzy over the impeachment in the 90's and the theft of 2000, both of which helped this disaster to come about. These people are not our friends, and they are not honest.

Posted by J Dalessandro | June 15, 2008 12:01 PM

The essential point is undeniable, but Rich is not the proper messenger. The man is a fraud, and he's one of Bush's enablers, since he helped "peddle the fables", the lies about Gore that made it possible to steal Florida and the White House. [dailyhowler.com]. Just because progressives like what Rich and Maureen Dowd say on any given day, they should never forget that these people have been major architects of our present disaster, to say nothing of their dishonest treatment of Pres. Clinton. Note how Rich can't bring himself to mention Chris Matthews or any other misogynistic bigot currently appearing in the media, especially the clowns on MSNBC. Today Dowd even had the nerve to wonder aloud how the French, in bidding goodbye to Bush, could understand how we ever got into this mess; probably because the French haven't been reading Maureen Dowd and her psychotic rants against 'girly-man' Democrats for the past twenty years. You might want to check out the fearless guardian of truth Frank Rich who you read on Sundays and contrast him with the pathetic stooge who laughs at Imus' lame sexist and racist jokes. Nothing has changed since the phony media frenzy over the impeachment in the 90's and the theft of 2000, both of which helped this disaster to come about. These people are not our friends, and they are not honest.

Posted by J Dalessandro | June 15, 2008 12:02 PM

The essential point is undeniable, but Rich is not the proper messenger. The man is a fraud, and he's one of Bush's enablers, since he helped "peddle the fables", the lies about Gore that made it possible to steal Florida and the White House. [dailyhowler.com]. Just because progressives like what Rich and Maureen Dowd say on any given day, they should never forget that these people have been major architects of our present disaster, to say nothing of their dishonest treatment of Pres. Clinton. Note how Rich can't bring himself to mention Chris Matthews or any other misogynistic bigot currently appearing in the media, especially the clowns on MSNBC. Today Dowd even had the nerve to wonder aloud how the French, in bidding goodbye to Bush, could understand how we ever got into this mess; probably because the French haven't been reading Maureen Dowd and her psychotic rants against 'girly-man' Democrats for the past twenty years. You might want to check out the fearless guardian of truth Frank Rich who you read on Sundays and contrast him with the pathetic stooge who laughs at Imus' lame sexist and racist jokes. Nothing has changed since the phony media frenzy over the impeachment in the 90's and the theft of 2000, both of which helped this disaster to come about. These people are not our friends, and they are not honest.

Posted by J Dalessandro | June 15, 2008 12:03 PM

I think Frank Rich is missing a point about pissed off Clinton supporters. Much of what angered supporters of Hillary Clinton was not the sexism at all but the left-wing bashing of the Clinton administration. Frank Rich himself sounded like a nineties Republican with the way he went after Clinton and he was tame compared to some of what was said. Additionally, the most fervent supporters of Obama were calling Clinton voters racists after the West Virginia and Kentucky primaries - a cheap shot but also a bad precedent if you want your guy to win elections in November. I'm hoping Obama-maniacs just went through a little phase and will be a little less shrill in the general election because I think that nastiness will be a real drag on Obama.

Posted by Nathan | June 15, 2008 1:04 PM

This might also be a result of blogosphere noise. Crazy people like Taylor Marsh and those women on O'Reilly make good link fodder. Thus, they are a lot noisier than the people with perfectly rational views. And this warps people's perceptions.

That said, wasn't the worry that older white women wouldn't contribute and stay home, rather than vote for McCain or Obama? Surely, THAT'S not an insulting trope. I mean, people said that African-Americans might stay home if Clinton won through a "coup" of the superdelegates (plausible, it seems to me) and that evangelicals might stay home if McCain gets the nod (also plausible). It certainly doesn't seem like these claims are sexist or...evangelicist.

I think there is a bit of a strawman here.

Posted by PTS | June 15, 2008 2:20 PM

Notorious, I think that "significant" doesn't mean what you think it means.

I'm with Nathan in the last bit but not the first. I'm okay with pointing out that Bill Clinton was somewhere right-of-center and that he supported and implemented crappy policies. I'm a little concerned that when Frank Rich and Matt conclude that women aren't actually switching to McCain the subtext is "AND SO EVERYTHING'S HUNKY-DORY!" and that when Nathan says the problem is that some Democrats were mean to Bill Clinton the subtext is still "AND SO EVERYTHING'S HUNKY-DORY!" There were some real problems in the Fauxgressive treatment of Hillary Clinton that I think are being dismissed here, and boy, the tu quoque "your mama's a racist" stuff really doesn't help (like, it's okay to be a sexist to someone who's racist? Really?)

I do think that there's some healing that needs to be done and that there are things that Obama supporters can do to help that along, which will, in turn, increase voter support for Obama. Supposedly this is about getting him elected, after all, and not doing an electoral version of Grace Adler's "Told You So" dance. I'm counting on Obama being elected in November and antagonizing former Clinton supporters really doesn't help that very much. And I'd personally be much more comfortable with pretending it never happened, focusing, and working to get Obama elected than I am with the recent spate of "AND SO EVERYTHING'S HUNKY-DORY" posts here, there, and elsewhere.

Posted by Melinda | June 15, 2008 2:33 PM

Matt,

You're missing the point of some of the push back and so is the piece you quote.

Sure, there may not in fact be that many Clinton voters who are going to now choose McCain out of spite, but there are quite a few who are convinced that the misogyny of others is THE primary reason why Clinton lost and they want to make sure everyone knows about it.

It's kind of a form of issue arrogance and axe grinding that just fuels bitterness on both sides.

Posted by Condor | June 15, 2008 2:39 PM

Well put by J Dalessandro and Nathan.

Most us here accept that Dowd is a loon, but it is important to note what a fraud Frank Rich is--he has been a consistent Clinton/Gore hater, and because he doesn't write like a complete mental case (Dowd), and he carried the Obama water this cycle, a lot of progressives seem to think he is a good guy. He is not. He was still peddling anti-Gore propaganda even after the Nobel Prize.

He's a scumbag.

Posted by Andruw | June 15, 2008 2:41 PM

. But the idea that Democratic women would defect en masse to the GOP in a fit of pique is a preposterous notion

Oh, don't be a moron. Of course it's a preposterous notion. No one is trying to say that Democratic women, or Democratic voters, or even pro-Clinton voters will "defect en masse".

What is being said is that some of them are, some of them are thinking about it, and some of them are planning to stay home. All of them? No. Lots of them? Probably not. Enough to make a difference? No one knows, and it's only that one that matters.

He was still peddling anti-Gore propaganda even after the Nobel Prize.

Wow, even then! Good heavens! Because the Nobel Peace Prize is such a validator.

Posted by Cal | June 15, 2008 3:18 PM

"We are at a very dangerous juncture in the nation's history."

This Democratic race has been divisive. In our judgment, Obama is a "chosen" candidate. For months, the pundits have been writing that the party wanted him as the nominee. The leaders overruled their own constituents and threw their endorsement to him. As a result, core Democratic voters learned that their votes were meaningless. To use the argument that this group will turn around and support a system that is corrupt is absurd.

"Obama has run a brilliant campaign."
Allegations of voter fraud in caucuses have hurt his credibility. Texas is a prime example. "Clinton supporters blocked from entry, ineligible voter participation, and fraud." This gave Obama the lead in caucus delegates. "As a result, just 42,000 Texans overruled the votes cast by over 2.4 million Texans earlier that day."

We have the mishandling of election results from MI and FL.

Moving the DNC operations to Chicago spells doom. It has a long history of political corruption. The last two Governors have been ensnared in racketeering and fraud trials. Rezko was just convicted. Why would the party align itself with any hint of impropriety? Because this is Obama's party.

The voters can think for themselves. When you connect the dots of Obama's rise to power, he is the last person that should be the POTUS.

Posted by EWard | June 15, 2008 3:44 PM

What is being said is that some of them are, some of them are thinking about it, and some of them are planning to stay home. All of them? No. Lots of them? Probably not. Enough to make a difference? No one knows, and it's only that one that matters.

One of the unfortunate realities of American electoral politics is that anything a candidate does--anything, from stumbling over a word in a speech, to proposing a subsidy for widows and orphans--will convince some group of cranks not to vote for him. In this case, the something happened to be beating a popular opponent.

At the moment, the people who have turned to McCain have nothing other than media attention. They aren't great in numbers, they don't have any prominent supporters in the party (or even any token celebrity supporters, as far as I can tell), they don't have the good sense to name their group something less asinine than Party Unity, My Ass, and the less committed among their ranks are a good bet to peel off and go Obama after all. They're no better or worse than any given group of cranks in any given election.

If we're wondering if the margin is going to be so small as to make this cuckoo group's efforts meaningful, surely there's lower-hanging fruit that can be targeted first.

Posted by Mike B. | June 15, 2008 3:57 PM

a significant number of Clinton primary voters have said they will shift their support to McCain

I think you're confusing "a significant number of Clinton primary voters" with "a significant number of the cranks who comment on internet political message boards."

Posted by Adam Villani | June 15, 2008 4:20 PM

If we're wondering if the margin is going to be so small as to make this cuckoo group's efforts meaningful, surely there's lower-hanging fruit that can be targeted first.

It's not just one group. They all formed spontaneously, as did the blogs that I know of (including my own, Don't Be A Good Democrat.) And most polls show that Obama only has the support of high 70s to low 80s of registered Democrats--less than McCain has of Republicans.

That's a margin worth working with in a tight race.

Posted by Cal | June 15, 2008 5:19 PM

EWard: "In our judgment..."

You don't have any judgment.

That's what we're discussing here. Your contribution is to serve as an example of the lunatic fringe.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 15, 2008 8:52 PM

"traditional gender gap where the party whose agenda is more favorable to the interests of women"

It may indeed be true that the Democratic party in general favors policies more favorable to the interests of women. But that's not what accounts for the gender gap. What accounts for the gender gap is the difference between men and women on issues that involves the use of force and policies aimed at helping the weak. Women differ a bit on exactly who the weak are, which explains why they're about as likely to be pro-life as men are.

Kerry basically lost the gender gap in 2004. To explain this, hacks went right to women's interests and posited the existence of "security moms" who have suddenly become right wing (as if moms who were previously supporting the liberal view on law enforcement and war were disproportionately scared straight by 9/11). But it's probably the case the Dems lost the gender gap because they tried to out-bellicose and out-military the GOP by nominating a Vietnam vet who criticized Bush for being unwilling to kick ass in Tora Bora.

The standard explanation of the gender gap in political science would lead one to conclude that the Dems will win back the gender gap big time, with a peace candidate Dem oppositing a Republican former POW who predicts "more wars".

Posted by Colatina | June 15, 2008 11:49 PM

Lunatic Fringe?

RSH

You need to look in the mirror. Where was your judgment when you robbed a bank and used a bus as a getaway vehicle? With all your psychic powers into world events, your crystal ball would have revealed 7 years at Leavenworth!

Posted by EWard | June 16, 2008 2:42 AM

Adam Villani,

Here is one of a number of polls showing that a sizeable number of Clinton supporters (28% in this case) said they would vote for McCain if Clinton lost. As far as I can tell, Frank Rich is attacking a straw man.

Note: I don't take such poll numbers too seriously. I suspect that most Clinton supporters were expecting, or at least hoping, she would win, and are only now thinking seriously about who to vote for in the fall. And Clinton's endorsement of Obama should help Obama.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | June 16, 2008 4:30 AM

Oops, I screwed up the link in the preceding comment. The link to the Gallop poll is http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | June 16, 2008 4:35 AM

EWard: Actually, had I done a little more research, I would have learned about GPS transponders in bait money - and I would have countered that. Unfortunately, Google didn't exist in 1992.

Of course, that would probably have meant I ended up dead later in my program, but the bank robbery would have worked fine.

The bus was not my intended getaway vehicle - BART was. After all, it worked perfectly on the first robbery.

You see, the key to a successful bank robbery is getting off the street quickly, so that even if they have a description of you - which they didn't in both my robberies - it doesn't matter. I had an escape route that got me off the street in thirty seconds. I would then have re-entered the street a block from BART, entered BART, and disappeared, re-appearing many blocks away near my safehouse.

However, when I re-entered the street and saw a ton of cops descending on the immediate area near me, I suspected BART might be sealed off, so changed plans on the spur of the moment. Of course, with transponders it didn't matter where I went. Had I known about them, however, it would have been easy to deal with them. Just get back off the street and ditch them - or weed them out immediately on leaving the bank in the first place - or not even accept them in the first place.

And it was eight years, not seven.

So, yes, my judgment was better than yours. And today, my knowledge is better than yours.

Because you're still the stupid cunt who would vote for McCain - a guy who calls his wife a cunt in public in front of the news media. And you complain Obama is sexist?

Moron.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 16, 2008 5:12 AM

But that poll is from back in March, when Hillary was still going around calling the presumptive nominee of her party not qualified. Presumably the number of Hillary dead-enders is less now.

Also, RSH may have robbed a bank, but he's 100% correct that anyone who remotely considers themselves a feminist who votes for John McCain is an idiot. And I say that as an anti-abortion Democrat. John McCain didn't like his first wife anymore after she got injured in a car accident and dumped her and his kids for a younger, richer woman whom he calls a cunt. That's not a smear, that's the facts.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 16, 2008 10:29 AM

RSH & Adam
You have no judgment. Using the words of a bank robber helps Obama's credibility? Why don't you market RSH in Obama's ads. Hi, I'm a bank robber and you are all m__ons, i_iot_ and c_nts, you better vote for Barack. Great Logic?

Using the abortion argument is no reason to vote for BO. He is a poor nominee. At least McCain has served his country honorably and is a patriot.

Posted by EWard | June 16, 2008 11:36 AM

I'm not defending Mr. Hack's past, I'm just saying that the fact that he's a felon has no bearing on whether you should vote for John McCain. Yes, John McCain has served his country honorably. Great. That doesn't mean we have to vote for him.

If you supported Hillary Clinton for her policies, then guess what --- with the exception of the Iraq War, Barack Obama's policies are nearly the same as hers. If you supported her for feminist reasons --- then John McCain is as anti-feminist a troglodyte as there is.

The only feminist knock against Obama is that he had the gall to compete against Hillary Clinton, whom I guess a few of you had anointed as the Chosen One.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 16, 2008 1:01 PM

Adam

I am voting for a candidate and not a party. If Obama had competed fairly that would be different.

The truth is the party and the media selected him as the nominee after Iowa. Review the archives of just the Atlantic, and you will see the coverage was one-sided. Supers consistently endorsed him even when he lost their state primaries. Obama lost in MA, WV, AZ, and NM. Yet, the trusted political leaders preempted the judgment of their own voters.

We are not falling in line behind the "chosen" one.

Posted by EWard | June 16, 2008 2:21 PM

The truth is the party and the media selected him as the nominee after Iowa.

And before that, the party had selected Clinton as the nominee. That's why she started off the voting ahead by 100 delegates. So because the press liked the guy, he didn't win fairly? That's absurd.

Obama won a majority of pledged delegates. His campaign was better-organized than Clinton's. His opponent began with the power of the party organization, but he managed to overcome that and eventually win their support by appealing to voters, running a smart campaign, and winning elections. Yes, the vote was close, but ultimately he won more delegates because more people preferred the fresh face to the political establishment.

That's pretty much it. Nothing nefarious, unless you think any kind of political strategizing is inherently dirty. And by any such standard that Obama failed, Hillary Clinton failed as well.

Obama and Clinton's messages are basically the same, it's mostly just a different messenger. If you really were a Clinton supporter and now you find yourself supporting McCain, I just have to ask why. Their vision for America is entirely different. About the only thing they have in common is that they're both not Barack Obama. Were you really supporting Clinton or were you just opposing Obama?

Posted by Adam Villani | June 16, 2008 5:35 PM

"...running a smart campaign, and winning elections..." "...he won more delegates because more people preferred the fresh face to the political establishment."

Obama won in caucus states where allegations of fraud took place. Texas is a prime example. "Clinton voters blocked from entry, ineligible voter participation, and fraud. This gave Obama the lead in caucus delegates. "As a result, just 42,000 Texans overruled the votes cast by over 2.4 million Texans earlier that day."

His delegate lead is a result of caucus states where voter turnout is low. A rough estimate of over 1 million voters participated in the caucuses. This isn't exactly a mandate from Democratic voters when you compare Hillary's victories in big-swing states.

He also won more delegates by blocking any revote or compromise in MI and FL. "The automatic delegates endorsed Senator Obama based on the results of those primaries and caucuses."

I am protesting Obama's nomination because it was gained through "inappropriate actions and inactions."

Posted by EWard | June 16, 2008 6:39 PM

The local disorganization and possible fraud in Texas is certainly nothing to be proud of, but I haven't seen anything substantiating claims of widespread, systemic fraud instead of things just being run poorly and being overwhelmed by crowds. Even if it was, remember that Texas was widely reported in the media as a Clinton victory, as the delegate count wasn't known immediately. The handful of delegates Obama gained in Texas vs. his popular vote count were a small fraction of his margin of victory, anyway.

The broader point is that you're complaining about the caucus process itself. Clinton and her husband have been involved in Democratic primaries and caucuses since 1992, and there was no substantial change in them this year. If they had any complaints about the democratic validity of the caucus system, why were they not raised until *after* the caucuses had been held, and it became clear that Clinton was routinely losing in them? You can't agree to the rules that you've been playing by for decades and then complain about them when it becomes clear that you're losing by them.

The popular vote count, which only favored Clinton if you counted the absurd Michigan election where she was the only major candidate on the ballot, was never the basis for the Democratic nomination. Delegates were and are. If you'd like to make the popular vote the basis for the nomination, go ahead and propose that for the party's next election cycle; I won't object. But Hillary lost under the rules as they stand, that she agreed to.

As for MI and FL, Hillary and her campaign agreed to strip them of their delegates last year, too. Blaming Obama for that fiasco is absurd.

Face it: She lost under the only rules that mattered. Now she's encouraging her supporters to support the Democratic nominee, who is espousing policies largely consistent with her own. For someone who supports what Hillary's campaign stood for to support John McCain is absurd.

Posted by Adam Villani | June 16, 2008 8:29 PM