The Case

I think Michael Goldfarb very adequately spells out the case for disappointed Hillary Clinton supporters to join him in lining up behind John McCain -- if what you liked about Clinton was her support for the Iraq War and the Kyl-Lieberman resolution, McCain may be your man.

But if, like most Clinton supporters I'm aware of, you liked her work on expanding access to health care and building a more generally equitable United States of America, then it seems to me you're going to want to vote for Obama.

Comments

Hillary supporters are more likely to come around and work for Obama if they swear off reading progressive blogs for a month or two. Many of us perceived that too many progressive blogs became almost as hurtful and sexist as the mass media, albeit unconsciously in some instances. Saying it was unconscious is being very conciliatory, but I am a 62-year-old social worker and can afford to be kind.

Too many Hillary supporters stopped reading and commenting on their previous favorite blogs. We stopped trying to explain what sexism was and why it was so hurtful. Fewer women seem to love intellectual combat.

I am ashamed to admit that I did too. Fancying myself as a member of the new creative class, I had suddenly become a low-information gullible. What a dismal fate for a reference librarian!

An ambivalent Hillary supporter, I tried rather stridently to discuss feminism and the election on several blogs in January. I then disappeared for five months and only reappeared when I had become an Obama supporter. I love to argue and debate. And yet I slunk away, muzzling myself. I even shut down my political blog.

The progressive blogosphere is bleeding and needs healing. To quote Digby:

'Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn't realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. "

HIllary feminists do need to take some responsibility for this. If we had stayed to debate and educate, the wounds would not have been as deep. Need I say that I am working my heart out for Obama. But the most helpful thing I can do right now is help Obama supporters understand the bitterness and pain of women HIllary supporters.

Posted by Redstocking Grandma | June 8, 2008 6:56 PM

Hillary supporters are more likely to come around and work for Obama if they swear off reading progressive blogs for a month or two. Many of us perceived that too many progressive blogs became almost as hurtful and sexist as the mass media, albeit unconsciously in some instances. Saying it was unconscious is being very conciliatory, but I am a 62-year-old social worker and can afford to be kind.

Too many Hillary supporters stopped reading and commenting on their previous favorite blogs. We stopped trying to explain what sexism was and why it was so hurtful. Fewer women seem to love intellectual combat.

I am ashamed to admit that I did too. Fancying myself as a member of the new creative class, I had suddenly become a low-information gullible. What a dismal fate for a reference librarian!

An ambivalent Hillary supporter, I tried rather stridently to discuss feminism and the election on several blogs in January. I then disappeared for five months and only reappeared when I had become an Obama supporter. I love to argue and debate. And yet I slunk away, muzzling myself. I even shut down my political blog.

The progressive blogosphere is bleeding and needs healing. To quote Digby:

'Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny that a lot of us knew existed but didn't realize was still so socially acceptable that it could be broadcast on national television and garner nary a complaint from anybody but a few internet scolds like me. "

HIllary feminists do need to take some responsibility for this. If we had stayed to debate and educate, the wounds would not have been as deep. Need I say that I am working my heart out for Obama. But the most helpful thing I can do right now is help Obama supporters understand the bitterness and pain of women HIllary supporters.

Posted by Redstocking Grandma | June 8, 2008 6:57 PM

Such a false dichotomy! I supported Hillary on Iraq AND health care. So who am I supposed to vote for now, Matt?

Posted by Vito Marzullo | June 8, 2008 7:14 PM

A more realistic argument for the McCain camp to make would be that if you find the issues too confusing and just liked Hillary because she was experienced, you might like McCain too.

Posted by Mike | June 8, 2008 7:17 PM

Most Clinton supporters will vote for Obama. The only ones who won't will be those who just voted for her, but really preferred McCain. Don't be fooled by all the right-wing trolls crawling around the net, pretending to be Hillary Clinton supporters. I've already caught a bunch of them.

Posted by Mike | June 8, 2008 7:23 PM

I took a long time to make up my mind. When I did, I supported Clinton. Here's why:

Better health care plan. MY is under the impression that the Senate will do what it wants. My impression that the Senate will write the plan that leaves out 15 million people i.e. Obama's plan. Campaigns matter, and how exactly is Obama going to support Clinton's plan after winning by trashing it?

On Iraq: I've heard some convincing arguments about how Iraq decided the primary; I agree. But my argument is that the election is about the future, and that both Clinton and Obama would do approximately the same thing. I voted for Kerry, who was wrong about the 1991 vote AND the 2002 vote on Iraq. Kerry had less of an excuse than anyone.

That said, Obama will have my vote this fall, no question. Never was.

Posted by PDX Pete | June 8, 2008 7:39 PM

McCain could always argue that Obama is an unqualified black man trying to take a white person's job through some sort of electoral affirmative action program.

That seemed to serve Clinton pretty well in Appalachia.

Posted by ben | June 8, 2008 7:48 PM

Don't be an ultra-liberal netroots jerk. You and I both know Hillary didn't support the Iraq War. Ridiculous -- one of the most specious arguments against her.

Posted by Matt | June 8, 2008 8:13 PM

Sorry, meant "doesn't" not "didn't". She may have voted for it, but doesn't support it now.

Posted by Matt | June 8, 2008 8:16 PM

I think McCain's the man for "Democrats" who like his public spectacles of "independence" on votes so lopsided that it doesn't matter, and don't know or care about the rest of the time when he reliably toes the Republican line.

People who value their subjective pleasure at the supreme irritation they imagine the Maverick must cause Republicans, more than the tangible results of McCain's Senate career, are probably conservative anyway. It's hardly surprising that such people would be willing to jump from Clinton to McCain.

Posted by Aatos | June 8, 2008 8:17 PM

My favorite part of that McCain site is that they don't allow comments. That's true outreach!

Posted by Adam | June 8, 2008 8:28 PM

A few things for disappointed Clinton supporters to remember:

1-If a Democrat is not elected, then Roe v. Wade is toast. McBush has been very clear on what kind of folks he wants on the Supreme Court. A lot of other really bad things can happen, like being in Iraq for 10, 20, or 100 years.

2-Whatever health care program is adopted (I prefer universal single-payer, i.e. medicare for all) it will emerge from the House of Representatives and the Senate. Senator Hillary Clinton can do an immense amount of good making that happen.

As ever, Democrats need to vote for the least worse option. Better for Clintonites to hold their noses and vote for the Democratic candidate than to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Posted by Etaoin Shrdlu | June 8, 2008 8:45 PM

Hillary Clinton is a legend in her own mind (and in the minds of her deluded supporters). In a better world Nita Lowey would be the junior Senator from NY instead of the celebrity carpetbagger.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | June 8, 2008 9:20 PM

"what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny"

Oh, bullshit.

These morons assume that just because somebody called Clinton a "bitch" that the criticism of Clinton was based entirely on "misogyny." That is not only a non sequitur, it's not even real.

Undoubtedly some - even many - opponents of Clinton simply didn't like the idea of a female President. That was utterly irrelevant to me and many other critics of Clinton. The problem with Clinton was her corruption, her lies, her attitude, and most especially her piss-poor policies on national security and foreign policy, especially Iraq and Iran.

Calling her a "bitch" was merely related to her self-serving attitude and her condescension to anyone who wasn't her toady and her whining about her critics being "sexist". The rest of the criticisms were utterly unrelated to her gender and were totally valid.

Anybody who thinks Clinton lost because of her gender is just an over-sensitive idiot. Angelina Jolie could have beaten Clinton or Obama despite dragging a laundry list of perceived public problems about her sex, her sexuality, drugs, experience and a dozen other issues. Clinton couldn't do it despite having no such issues except her own attitude and her piss-poor policies and voting record.

Meanwhile, we have a bunch of over-60 females posting all over the place how it was all about "misogyny". Not ONCE do these people discuss Clinton's lies, her connection with the corrupt pardon of Marc Rich, her votes on Iraq and Iran, her "obliterate Iran" comment or anything else policy-wise or behavior wise. It's all about being female for these people.

Chris Matthews acts like an idiot, and that's all that matters to these people.

Pure identity politics.

So why should we take those people seriously if they can't take the candidate's policies and actions seriously?

If I vote for Angelina Jolie based on hot lips and big tits, am I justified in complaining when she loses that it was all because everybody else was "gay"?

Please. Take this shit down the road.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 8, 2008 10:07 PM

"Clinton's campaign ripped open a hole in our culture and forced us to look inside. And what we found was a simmering cauldron of crude, sophomoric sexism and ugly misogyny..."

Once again we are reminded of how lucky we are that Obama has saved us from Hillary and her bitter band of feminist crones.

Posted by kafka | June 8, 2008 10:23 PM

And kafka helps make digby's point.

Posted by Dan S. | June 8, 2008 11:35 PM

Naturally, Birdie and Sandy are elated that the Obama fellow got the nod (being Barack Obama supporters themselves).

But Curdy and Blandie (lib Hitler boosters) are quite broken up; not sure what they might do.

Turdy and Landie (Republican domestic partners, contributors to John McCain) are taking a wait and see approach.

Posted by Linus | June 8, 2008 11:37 PM

That may have been kafka's purpose...I can't tell.

Whether in fact Hillary's "base" is some sort of "bitter feminist crone" is up for debate. Certainly the only people who keep posting here about how horrible the treatment of Hillary was is precisely people self-identifying as "older white women" who clearly were supporting Hillary on the basis of identity politics (and whose only policy interest is probably health care.)

The fact that the sole reason they can point to for Hillary's loss is "misogyny" pretty clearly, in the absence of any actual evidence, shows where they are coming from.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 8, 2008 11:44 PM

I look forward to seeing all the Hillary Clinton supporters who insist she lost because of sexism and misogyny leaping to Michelle Obama's defense.

Posted by Daniel Koffler | June 9, 2008 1:14 AM

Personally, I think that the misogyny charge is a straw man. The main reason Hillary lost was because she ran a poor campaign. Also, Hillary was simply not as persuasive as Obama. Basically, those who would be president must not just have a message, but must be able to sell it. Hillary simply couldn't sell it as good as Obama, just as Gore and Kerry couldn't sell it as well as Bush. Personal charisma is an extremely meaningful part of leadership, and historically Americans seem to care as much about it as gender or race.

I also suspect something else, and would be interested in some feedback about it. It seems as if many of thsoe who were so passionate about Hillary are also of the belief that Obama's talk about ending partisanship is a dangerous and naive (sp?) pipe-dream, and that Obama is deluded if he thinks that any in-roads can be made between left and right. I often hear how so many people want this partisan bickering to end, it's tearing us apart, etc etc, but it seems that many of Hillary's supporters don't want it to end at all, or else don't think it ever will. There may be valid reasons for this or it may be simply a mindset. I was wondering if anybody has an opinion about this. I'm quite curious to see what people think.

Posted by J Bryant | June 9, 2008 1:51 AM

I wasn't turned off from Hillary because of her gender, but because of her last name. Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush...

So, yes, maybe some of us were prejudiced against her from the start. But not because of sexism.

Also, her campaign consisted of "a little turn to port" after W. had driven us headlong into an iceberg and burned the lifeboats.

Sorry, Hillary. In another time, maybe, you would have been solid gold.

Posted by Gronk | June 9, 2008 5:46 AM

I think people are confusing a) identifying a rather unhinged and decidedly misogynist reaction to Hillary in the media (and as Redstocking Grandma points out, parts of the supposedly progressive blogosphere) with b) insisting that any criticism of her is in fact misogynistic, or even c) insisting that it's the reason she lost. There are people doing b) and/or c) (mistakenly, I believe), but they don't seem to be in this thread, nor are such claims being made in the digby quote that RSH and kafka are specifically responding to.

Indeed, in the post RG quotes from, digby very explicitly says

"I have written before that I don't believe Obama's win is attributed to this phenomenon. He won it fair and square, carrying a heavy historical burden of his own. But that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Acknowledging that doesn't create a "toxic legacy" and neither is it just the sad lament of "lonely people" (translation: lonely old women.) But I'm sure those memes will catch on and we'll all be told that we imagined it all. (Youtube is our new best friend.)"

And indeed, you can go over there and watch the video to get a better idea about what she's talking about.

"Calling her a "bitch" was merely related to her self-serving attitude and her condescension to anyone who wasn't her toady and her whining about her critics being "sexist"."

But imagine statements like 'calling him a 'kike' was merely related to his miserly, scheming, clannish nature,' or 'calling him a n***** was merely related to his lazy, ignorant, and violent nature' (indeed, this one is basically a paraphrase of an incredibly ignorant post by some rightwing blogger not long ago which was rapidly and correctly identified as, well, racist)? I expect (hopefully incorrectly) that we'll see more and more obvious racism directed at Obama; pointing out that there are also genuine criticisms won't make it not exist.

Posted by Dan S. | June 9, 2008 7:17 AM

But imagine statements like 'calling him a 'kike' was merely related to his miserly, scheming, clannish nature,' or 'calling him a n***** was merely related to his lazy, ignorant, and violent nature' (indeed, this one is basically a paraphrase of an incredibly ignorant post by some rightwing blogger not long ago which was rapidly and correctly identified as, well, racist)?

Shoot. Does this mean we can't say 'bitch' any more?

Posted by Anonymous | June 9, 2008 8:28 AM

The first post here sums up the delusion of the Clintonistas. Poor Hillary was maligned by sexism don't you know! Of course lifelong Democrats in Appalachia flat out said they'd rather vote for a Republican than a black man, but hey racism is over in America. It was those mean old Obama folk that ran attack adds showing a midnight phone call in the oval office and saying a certain candidate was unqualified. Oh wait, that was Clinton. But Clinton was standing up for the little guy when she fought for Michigan and Florida votes after she promised not to only after she really needed them to have a chance of winning. And of course she lied about the whole Balkans thing. But hey, we need to feel sorry about that gaping hole that Hillary supporters have or otherwise they will be vindictive and vote for McCain out of spite.

Posted by freddiemac | June 9, 2008 10:02 AM

It seems as if many of thsoe who were so passionate about Hillary are also of the belief that Obama's talk about ending partisanship is a dangerous and naive (sp?) pipe-dream, and that Obama is deluded if he thinks that any in-roads can be made between left and right. I often hear how so many people want this partisan bickering to end, it's tearing us apart, etc etc, but it seems that many of Hillary's supporters don't want it to end at all, or else don't think it ever will. There may be valid reasons for this or it may be simply a mindset. I was wondering if anybody has an opinion about this. I'm quite curious to see what people think.
Posted by J Bryant | June 9, 2008 1:51 AM

I think this accounts for 80% of the reason why a democratic primary voter choose Hillary over Obama. Fear of a compromise with republican evil. Fear of getting played. Wanting a pitbull in your corner instead of a reconciler. And in my opinion the NAFTA leak was the one item that almost sank the Obama campaign because it augmented all these fears. If the NAFTA leak hadn't happened I think that Obama would have done better in Ohio and Texas and the whole process might have wrapped up sooner.
That whole event stinks to high heaven by the way. How was that private conversation flagged and distributed? I think some RNCC operatives called in a favor from the conservative party of Canada.

The final 20% are idiosyncratic voters, with big chunks being either republican moles or pure identity politics baffoons, be it on race on gender. The real difference was about political style, and this ties into a generational divide. Fortunately, in my opinion, the Democrats managed to place their chips on the future.

Posted by Northern Observer | June 9, 2008 10:33 AM

I think Goldfarb actually makes a much better case in this post than in the one Matt links.

Redstocking, that's a good post, and it's unfortunate that the zero sum nature of the primary meant that we Obama supporters didn't give as much attention to the misogyny directed against Hillary as we should have.

Posted by washerdreyer | June 9, 2008 12:27 PM

Clinton has reached across the aisle more than Obama ever has.

Posted by Tim K | June 9, 2008 2:50 PM

"But imagine statements like 'calling him a 'kike' was merely related to his miserly, scheming, clannish nature,' or 'calling him a n***** was merely related to his lazy, ignorant, and violent nature' (indeed, this one is basically a paraphrase of an incredibly ignorant post by some rightwing blogger not long ago which was rapidly and correctly identified as, well, racist)?"

Ah, here we go! I've always used racial or ethnic slurs precisely to describe the behavior of people WHO ARE A DISGRACE TO their particular race or ethnicity. This is precisely the only place where such slurs should be used. Anything else IS racist or sexist or whatever.

And this is precisely how such slurs are used BY the members of a given demographic. Lower class blacks call each other "nigger" all the time. Women call each other "bitches" all the time. (Jews - I don't know what slur they use, but I have no doubt they have one.)

And that is precisely how I use such terms.

And the notion that ONLY members of a given demographic can use demographic slurs against other members of that demographic is itself a racist or sexist notion - not to mention hypocritical.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 9, 2008 7:35 PM