home

Will McCain Go After Hillary's Female Voters?

Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake today asks whether John McCain will make a pitch for Hillary's female supporters if Obama is the nominee.

I spoke with a well-known pollster recently who said that if women think the country would be safer with McCain over Obama by 10 points on election day, she predicts that McCain will win. While it's absurd to think that McCain would be better than Obama on women's issues, these kinds of decisions are -- as Krugman says -- highly emotional. A pitch to "security moms," combined with an appeal about "elitists in the Democratic party" looking down their noses on working class women just might work.

I hope McCain fails in his bid for women voters, should Obama be the nominee. It's the last thing Hillary would want. And, Democrats who switch sides out of spite or revenge will get far more than they bargained for, including anti-choice Supreme Court Justices and right-wing ideologue federal judges.

Any Democrat is better than what John McCain is offering. Given McCain's age, his selection of a VP candidate will be very telling. I suspect it will be someone that can bring him evangelical and ultra-conservative votes. That makes his candidacy twice as dangerous.

Yet, Jane's post is correct that Obama's nomination poses big electability challenges for Democrats in November.

The answer, to me, is simple: The nomination is still a two way race. Superdelegates can still pick the more electable Democrat among not only women voters but older, rural and blue collar voters as well. That candidate is Hillary Clinton. [More...]

Jane ends with:

.... Does Obama try to go after the white male vote and shore up his military bona fides with Jim Webb? Webb's "Women Can't Fight" article will no doubt be resurrected. Does Obama try to help himself with Latino voters by picking Bill Richardson? Well, Richardson has notorious women problems (most recently his "Whizzer White" gaffe) that will come back to haunt him. Either choice leaves a huge opening for McCain to make a move.

Hell, if Obama can go after fundamentalist voters, there's no reason for McCain not to court the ladies.

There are commenters here who say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee. I think they are wrong, and I hope they change their mind if Hillary is not the nominee. For every minute spent unproductively insulting Obama or vowing to support McCain, they could be writing about why Florida and Michigan need to count or helping Hillary make phone calls in MT, SD or promoting her efforts in Puerto Rico or letting superdelegates know why they think Hillary has a better chance in November.

The race isn't over. Let's stop the post-mortem and like Hillary, see it through. An uphill battle does not mean defeat. It means you try harder.

Comments now closed.

< Castro Criticizes Obama's Planned Cuba Policy | More On Unity, Krugman, Obama And FL/MI >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I just hope HIllary takes it all the way to (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by athyrio on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:51:58 PM EST
    the convention because those SD can change their minds up until then....

    Yes, she can! (5.00 / 12) (#71)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    And, hey, Jeralyn, some of us can multi-task.  I complain about Obama while I call PR, MT and SD, just like I complained about him while I called all the other states.  I also managed to rail on about FL and MI in the meantime.

    But, the important message here is that Clinton is still in it to win it.  This thing is not over--that is why I spend as much time a day as I can calling for our girl and sending hate mail to Howard Dean.

    [ Parent ]

    I am tired of being told that the blood (5.00 / 23) (#4)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    of our nation will be on MY hands if I don't suport Obama.

    Here's my take:  "We're not buying it. YOU all have a chance - still - to select the most electable and experienced candidate.  But YOU choose to drink the Kool-aide and sing Kumbaya while ignoring the facts that are in front of your noses.

    So if there's any blood on anyone's hands, IT WILL BE YOUR HANDS, not mine.

    I know who will end the war in Iraq; I know who will support pro-choice supremes (and I do NOT know that about BO); I know who will fight for UNIVERSAL health care; I know who will fight for equal rights and equal education for all of our children; I know who will come up with a sound energy policy (NOT Cheney's BTW...but I guess BO pressed the wrong button that day...again!); I know who will work to keep and create jobs in this country; I know who will NOT privatize SS; I know who will react with a calm head and a strong heart if we are attacked again.  AND IT'S NOT BARACK OBAMA.

    You still have a choice and a chance.  Take it.  Or look at the blood on your own hands when President McCain takes office in January, 2009."


    Me too, sick to death of it (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    What the heck, half of Obama's supporters told me that my family eats Iraqi blood for breakfast everyday - even though their boy didn't do anything "real" about ending the Iraq War either.  It's all my fault.  I might as well have some of the blood of my nation on my hands too and have that be all my fault too.  What difference does any of it make anymore?  It's just more bull.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, please stop trying to take my rights (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    hostage.  I hate the armegeddon arguments because I feel they are perilously close to the threats of BO supporters to riot at the convention.  It does not persuade me in the least.

    I won't vote for McCain because he's antichoice and that's a threshold issue for me.  However, I was reading up on McCain's bio the other day, and it impresses me (note I say bio, not policies).

    Although this argues against my own interests, I think McCain stands a decent chance to win over a lot of women.  Many women care about reproductive rights but it's not their primary issue.  Obama can't play the victim card because being tortured wins over 'Hillary called me a bad name".  McCain has served his country, Obama has not.  

    The Republicans will trot out the tax and spend liberal thing again (I didn't think it would work in 2004, it's such a tired scheme but it did) against Obama and he little to fight it with.  When the economy gets bad, people get scared, and promises of tax cuts, however bad in the long term, sound very attractive in the short term.

    [ Parent ]

    I also truly resent BO's "Sweetie" (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:27:03 PM EST
    comment - A LOT.

    He was smary.  It rolled off his tongue too easily.  It was demeaning.  And he even admits that "he has to work on that" a bit.

    But that's not good enough for me...apparently he promised his wife he would stop smoking but it was reported yesterday that he reeked of smoke when he rolled off a campaign bus the other day in PR.

    IMHO, he reeks from a lot more than the smell of smoke.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes...his saying "Sweetie" ... (1.00 / 1) (#189)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:38:14 PM EST
    was a mistake.  But not enough of one to not vote for him...unless you are looking for an excuse.

    [ Parent ]
    Add it to everything else and it becomes (5.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Shainzona on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:58:36 PM EST
    a tipping point.

    [ Parent ]
    Tipping Point? (none / 0) (#246)
    by squeaky on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:08:19 PM EST
    None of the flock that descended on TL starting around February have tipped. All were well tipped when they arrived and have rhythmically fainted in unison at every perceived slight.

    I have to laugh when one of them says, now I really am never going to vote for Obama, as if that were somehow different from the first comments they ever wrote here.

    [ Parent ]

    Guilty, as charged (5.00 / 2) (#250)
    by Upstart Crow on Mon May 26, 2008 at 07:25:14 PM EST
    I came to this site at a point where I thought I was going insane because of all the overtly misogynist stuff that was going on. And nobody seemed to see it.

    So I am grateful to TL.

    I also hope to be weaning myself away from it.

    Since it's clear to me, anyway, that BHO will be the candidate, regardless of the will-of-the-people or anything else, I'm going to sit out the next few elections.  

    Time to return to my own rather interesting life -- interesting, especially, for someone the BHO afficionados have discarded as a whore, a biddy, a frightened old woman, etc.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm shaking the magic eightball and......... (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:53:52 PM EST
    it says "of course".  Easy pickins after this media mysogyny carnival.

    i agree with you and i agree with jane (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Turkana on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:54:47 PM EST
    that obama has serious electability problems, and i agree with you that for all his shortcomings there is no comparison between obama and mccain on the issues. i presume most hillary supporters prefer her because of her more substantive, wonkier focus on issues. but anyone focused on issues has to understand that there is no comparison between obama and mccain. it is imperative that we elect a democrat to the white house, this november. where i disagree with you is on hillary's viability for the nomination. i agree with most of your arguments about why the superdelegates should consider her, but i no longer think it plausible that enough will.

    Here's (5.00 / 10) (#115)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:50:31 PM EST
    the problem a lot of us have with voting for Obama: It would be validating the sleaze that has oozed from his campaign.

    Besides, I'm at the point that it's obvious Obama has severe electability problems and is very likely to lose in Nov. If the DNC and the superdelegates don't care enough about these issues to put up a candidate who has a chance against McCain why should I? I really think that the DNC doesn't want to win this election. Truly.

    [ Parent ]

    How on earth can you tell (5.00 / 5) (#123)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    where Obama stands on the issues?  His basic are a secret, as far as I can tell.  What issues will he stand and fight for?  How do you know?

    The issues that there is evidence about, such as his energy policies and his attitudes toward social programs, I find his views extremely troubling to me.


    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, that should have been (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:55:28 PM EST
    his basic principles are secret.


    [ Parent ]
    I have problems (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Grace on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    with this too.  I really don't know what he stands for.  His positions change with the wind.  

    But my number one reason I can't bring myself to vote for him is his inexperience.  Even now, we don't really have much of a voting record to look at, even if you consider all the times he voted "Present."  

    McCain does have a long and respectable bio and I trust he would never do anything to harm his country.  With a Democratic House and Senate, I'd expect to see more bipartisan issues taken care of on his watch.  

    [ Parent ]

    "Imperative" that we elect a Democrat? (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by Mike H on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:13:47 PM EST
    What if that Democrat was Joe Lieberman?  Or Zell Miller?  

     I'm sorry, but I no longer buy this argument that we "have" to elect a Democrat NO MATTER WHO the Democrat happens to be.

    BO is still a blank slate, an inexperienced empty suit.  I'm not AT ALL convinced that he would be better for the country than McCain, and I'm not going to vote for BO simply because he has a (D) after his name.

    I am ABSOLUTELY convinced that Hillary Clinton would be better for the country than McCain, and will vote accordingly.

    [ Parent ]

    Except...Joe Lieberman is an Independent... (none / 0) (#185)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:35:44 PM EST
    Not a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    Well said (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by nellre on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:54:54 PM EST
    The race isn't over. Let's stop the post-mortem and like Hillary, see it through. An uphill battle does not mean defeat. It means you try harder.


    Paradox (5.00 / 14) (#8)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:55:36 PM EST
    There is a paradox, there are so many in this election that I cannot handle them all.  This paradox usually goes like this:  Gender should not be an issue and you should not vote on gender lines.  But, when it comes to the GE, you must vote for Obama cause you women, have no choice.  Do, people understand how that is bothersome?  

    Well, then it means that the Democratic majority in Congress will have to earn their keep.  

    Another paradox, Obama thinks (5.00 / 7) (#21)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    that voters should not "cling" to specific values, yet the fact that he is pro-choice should be enough for me to vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    and we are to assume because obama has (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:35:31 PM EST
    the democratic mantle that he will support women? his record on judges isn't stellar. what has he done for women? vote for me because i am not bush won't win the election.

    it is a sorry state we have allowed ourselves to get into. we need to thank the dnc, pelsoi, dean, and brazile for their help by booting them out of leadership positions. there is a reason why the democratic congress has lower approval ratings than bush. we elected them to help us. have they?

    [ Parent ]

    Really. When did he say that voters should not... (none / 0) (#64)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:32:31 PM EST
    cling to a specific value?  If you are referring to the comments he made in SF, he was talking about voting patterns.  To suggest otherwise is disengenuous.

    [ Parent ]
    People vote based on their values. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:42:11 PM EST
    To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

    How do you think these "voting patterns" come about? It's not arbitrary.

    [ Parent ]

    So a woman who is pro-choice... (none / 0) (#126)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    Would never vote against her own interests and pull the lever for an anti-choice candidate?  I mean, that is part of her value system, right?

    I think his point was right on, that the Republicans were able to use wedge issues (guns, immigration, religion), by putting these issues on the ballot or pushing them.  So, you have an economically depressed group voting against their wallet, but for a hot-button wedge issue.

    [ Parent ]

    Are you insinuating that (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    women are only capable of having one interest at a time?

    Abortion is no less a wedge issue that the issues cited by you and Obama, which is exactly my point. According to Obama we should not "cling" to a particular issue at the expense of other interests.

    I'm just following his advice, so take it up with him if you don't like it.

    [ Parent ]

    I can't believe that (5.00 / 2) (#201)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:50:13 PM EST
    this clown told you to go to Obama's website.  Jeez, we gotta get better.

    [ Parent ]
    No, he never said voters "should" or... (none / 0) (#191)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    Should not "cling" to an issue.  Just that voters have been pushed in a direction by the GOP using wedge issues.  

    And yes, women can have many interest/issues, and if they are smart they will (like all voters) educate themselves on the candidates positions.  My suggestion is that you go to Sen Obama's website and see how his allign with yours.  They aren't that much different from Sen Clintons, BTW.

    [ Parent ]

    I know Obama's has a website (5.00 / 3) (#203)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:52:10 PM EST
    and I assure you I will visit it the next time I want to find out what his policy advisers think.

    And my point still stands. I will not allow the Obama camp to use abortion as a wedge. I have other concerns.

    [ Parent ]

    A few posters on here are not... (none / 0) (#225)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:29:15 PM EST
    The "Obama Camp".  Believe me, I don't have such an inflated sense of importance.

    I understand not wanting to see abortion as a wedge issue, I don't think he has.  But the folks who have concerns about it think it is important; I know I do.

    [ Parent ]

    thanks but i'll check his votes (5.00 / 5) (#209)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:01:32 PM EST
    and treatment of hillary out for a real indication of his positions and attitudes toward women. i suggest you do that also.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess that her ill treatment of him... (none / 0) (#221)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:21:53 PM EST
    Makes her attitudes towards men negative?  Please tell me some votes of his that have shown a poor attitude towards women.

    [ Parent ]
    first of all she hasn't mistreated him. (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:25:59 PM EST
    go do your own homework.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure she hasn't... (1.00 / 1) (#230)
    by NvlAv8r on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:39:23 PM EST
    "As far as I know".

    Using Republican talking points calling him elitist after the SF fundraiser...

    Not the best way to set up a fellow Dem who will be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    your hypocrisy leaves me breathless. (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:41:32 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ahem.... (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by waldenpond on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:47:04 PM EST
    His vote for Thomas B Griffith.  Hello? hello?

    [ Parent ]
    You seem to NOT understand the group he was (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by leis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 06:12:08 PM EST
    denigrating vote Democratic.  PA is blue. Why would he say D's are voting against their economic self-interest?  He was making excuses on why they weren't voting for him.  

    They were NOT voting against their wallet. Or at least they haven't, but if Obama is the nom, you never know.

    [ Parent ]

    I absolutely (2.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Claw on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:58:49 PM EST
    See how the mention of the threat to Roe is bothersome, annoying, and seems like blackmail.  The thing is that Roe is just one of many, many decisions that would be overturned or harmed by a republican president.  We JUST WANT A DEMOCRAT.  And I'm afraid that those of us who think Obama is the better GE candidate use Roe as an unfortunate shorthand for the disaster that would be 12 more years of a republican whitehouse.  We shouldn't do it.  It is insulting and it isn't what the vast majority of us mean when we bring up Roe.  What we mean is that we're in very deep trouble if McCain wins.  
    And I wouldn't count on congress to do their jobs--if president McCain nominates an extremely conservative justice, they'll confirm him.  He, like Clarence Thomas, won't have formed an opinion on Roe and won't want to discuss things like the abrogation of the 4th amendment (in the unlikely event it's even brought up) for fear of effecting future cases brought before him.

    [ Parent ]
    Thank you (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by Dr Molly on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:08:38 PM EST
    At least you are sensitive to how outrageously insulting the Roe vote bullying is, unlike some of the other a**holes on this thread.

    And I agree with you - personally, I find there are lots of other issues to worry about with a highly conservative supreme court - like environmental regulation, privacy, worker's rights, etc.

    That does not mean I will vote for Obama, btw, but at least you get that women are not going to fall into line and vote for someone they don't trust JUST BECAUSE OF BUNCH OF GUYS THREATEN THEM WITH ROE.

    [ Parent ]

    If in fact McCain wins the GE, (5.00 / 14) (#9)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:56:00 PM EST
    won't a Dem controlled Congress, in numbers higher than today, make his Presidency impotent?  And how does that effect 2012?

    Great question. (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:57:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    A democratic congress with (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    McCain as President might work out well, if the Dems stand up to him.

    Yeah, that's a joke.

    [ Parent ]

    Your point is well taken. (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:54 PM EST
    Dems received a mandate in '06 and did NOTHING!  Well, with more numbers, maybe there's hope.

    [ Parent ]
    I expect McCain to be more (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by MarkL on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:03:29 PM EST
    bipartisan and cooperative than Bush, although that's not saying much

    [ Parent ]
    There's a campaign slogan for him (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:16:35 PM EST
    Vote for Obama cause the Dems in Congress are cowardly weasels

    That would be a big seller  :-)

    [ Parent ]

    We really need to make sure (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:48:33 PM EST
    Pelosi is not put back in the Speaker position.

    [ Parent ]
    It isn't just the office... (none / 0) (#52)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:26:57 PM EST
    If a Republican gets elected to the White House, all of the Bush/Cheney imperial presidential powers (to ignore congress, to violate the constitution, to be unbelievably secretive) will become established precedent.

    I prefer Clinton, but that's one potential advantage to Obama--he would probably lose many of the claimed presidential authorities that Bush/Cheney have, and cede them back to Congress (and the Courts).

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree with you, but (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:29:12 PM EST
    what makes you think he will?

    [ Parent ]
    I doubt it (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by Valhalla on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    It is very, very difficult for someone in power, even someone with real integrity, to give up any part of that power voluntarily.

    I have seen nothing in Obama that would indicate he's a person of integrity.

    Heck, even Bill Clinton (who I love) didn't voluntarily hand back the power that shifted to the Executive in the previous 12 years, for the most part.  I'm not even sure Hillary (also love) would do it, I just believe, based on her actions, she would use it wisely.  Obama doesn't have a similarly positive record on that score.

    [ Parent ]

    McCain started talking about (5.00 / 4) (#94)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:41:00 PM EST
    restoring the balance of powers.  He's already said he would not issue any "signing statements" because they are an attempt to overturn the will of the congress.  From a balance of powers standpoint, I don't see much wrong with him other than in the realm of foreign policy where he seems to hold to the GOP line of presidential prerogative.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama Is Trying To Consolidate All Dem Funds (4.60 / 10) (#86)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:37:14 PM EST
    under his brand and is trying to dry up the funds to outside activist groups. If he controls the money and the message, he can use this additional power for good or ill as he choses. If he is trying to gain this much power over the Dem money and organization, why should I just assume that he will relinquish any executive powers?

    [ Parent ]
    Who cares about Obama's $$$$? (none / 0) (#114)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:50:20 PM EST
    Hillary is still winning votes despite the $$$.  McCain won his nomination despite the $$$.  Tell Obama to give some to Kenya.

    [ Parent ]
    Kenya? (1.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Spike on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:18:07 PM EST
    I guess it's time for racial/ethnic slurs.

    [ Parent ]
    Thay may have been a bit rude, (none / 0) (#119)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    but you get my point.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, except for appointing all the new (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:58:31 PM EST
    Fed judges.  Do those have to meet congressional approval or does he just get to have it his way?

    [ Parent ]
    Advice and consent of the Senate. (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:00:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    California in June weather (5.00 / 4) (#49)
    by Stellaaa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:25:45 PM EST
     well, the fog has started here in the Bay Area.  Rats.  
    Story for you to feed my, California not so sure theory.  Today, a young person I know his grandpa, 90+ years never voted for a Republican in his life, will vote for one this time.  Why?  Cause the MSM and everyone are picking on his people from Appalachia and the other places they came from.  This is the California everyone is taking for granted.  Yep, Grapes of Wrath people are here and they have an allegiance.  

    [ Parent ]
    i just asked the question what has the (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    dem congress done for us. i have very real concerns they won't be that much help to us no matter who is president. sad to say

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Coral on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:41:16 PM EST
    A Democratic controlled Congress will not stop a doggedly persistent right-wing ideologue.

    Because the presidency has a huge amount of power, and the media and Congress have to be willing to take enormous risks to stop a determined president from using that power.

    For example, why has a Democratic Congress not been able to defund the war?

    Why did the press willingly spread blatant lies in order to aid Bush's march to war against Iraq?

    So I think it's an extremely important elections and that is why I am so disheartened by the primary process and Obama's tin-ear when it comes to issues like seating FL and MI and reaching, if not to Hillary, at the very least to Hillary's constituency.

    [ Parent ]

    There's certainly a lot of anger out there. (5.00 / 9) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    Failure on Sen. Obama's part to acknowledge that -- or worse yet, his demonstrable penchant for patronizing women -- will only compromise his problems with  the female electorate, and render his election this fall all the more problematic.

    And remember, we're still awaiting the jury's verdict in the Tony Rezko trial in Chicago, so it's not like Obama enjoys a large margin for error here.

    Losing Democratic "Security Moms" (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by Exeter on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    to Bush in 2004 cost Kerry the election in 2004.

    I knew we were doomed... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by NWHiker on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:11:19 PM EST
    ... in 2004 when the Beslan (sp?) happend.

    I'm a member of a few email lists, about 100-150 women total, all mothers, from various backgrounds etc.

    I saw women who voted for Gore in 00 move towards Bush after September 11th, but there was still some residual loyalty towards Dems that would have been votes for Kerry had not Beslan happened. These are the Dem security moms and it was so crystal clear even as it was happening (as opposed to hindsight). Women who really thought that Bush would keep their children safe from something like that.

    What is sad is that those women are not coming back, over all. They still worry about choice, but less than about security.

    Obama will not get those women. Clinton might, based on what I'm hearing, in large part because they all did trust Bill Clinton, but also because she is a woman. Obama? Ain't gonna happen.

    [ Parent ]

    and winning security moms back in 06 (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by kempis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:48:56 PM EST
    by running Blue Dogs is what got a Democratic majority back in Congress. So why does it make sense to turn their backs on them now? I don't get it.

    McCain will definitely win security moms (and dads) this fall, especially if Olbermann treats us to one of his classic, "You, madams and sirs, are racists!" rants.

    Seriously, McCain has a great story, a long history of distinguished service, and a wealth of practical political experience. I'm sure we've all heard people of various ideologies in our lives say this: "Well, if McCain wins, I won't be so upset; at least he's not one of those crazy Republicans."

    That's the perception out there. And that perception is going to translate into more votes for the experienced old guy over the young, inexperienced guy with some very questionable associations and close connections to classic "America-hating" leftists. That's just reality.

    If Obama is the nominee, McCain will be the next president. I cannot believe that the DNC doesn't know this.

    [ Parent ]

    i don't look for the things that got out (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:58:48 PM EST
    in this campaign sort of like pandora's box to go quietly back. the groups that want theirs won't be quiet. don't count on it. that is not going to help. you have groups threatening to riot in denver. that didn't help in 68. there will be a lot of division that will turn any voters off and part of that group are the women voters. as i said already it is his job to win us back if he can. i personally don't think he will try that hard. we have already been told we aren't needed as you recall.

    [ Parent ]
    Frankly, I don't see female Hillary supporters (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:44 PM EST
    falling all over each other to vote obama.  Many will vote downticket and leave top spot blank.  In my estimation, obama cannot be trusted.  If we have a large majority in congress, we can dilute McCain's power.

    let's not set it up to beat up on hillary and (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:39:29 PM EST
    women if obama loses. he will lose based on his abililities. it has been his to lose and frankly many decisons his campaign has made says "i don't care about you" to me. bitters, we don't need or want you. blah, blah, blah! this is obama's problem. it is his job TO CONVINCE US AND NOT FOR OTHERS TO TELL US WE HAVE TO DO THAT.

    [ Parent ]
    It's already set up that way (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by Kathy on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:54:51 PM EST
    They are doing it every day on the news--Clinton and her stupid women supporters.  "What can you do about them?"  We are going to be ridiculed and vilified after an Obama loss because it will clearly be all our fault.  Which raises the question: can someone name me anything that has ever been Obama's fault?  The man is pretty perfect.  I just can't understand why McCain hasn't already dropped out.

    Thank God Clinton is still in.  Rise, Hillary, Rise!  We need you!

    [ Parent ]

    Big deal (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by hlr on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:23:36 PM EST
    We are going to be ridiculed and vilified after an Obama loss

    I dare, no, double dare, the next Dem nominee to be part of the ridiculing and vilifying.

    [ Parent ]

    Anti-McCain argument isn't enough (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Coral on Mon May 26, 2008 at 03:59:49 PM EST
    I won't vote for McCain under any circumstances. But my vote isn't the issue. I know plenty of women who have been disaffected by the process and vow not to vote for Obama.

    The one thing that could hold their vote is Obama inviting Clinton to join the ticket in the VP slot.

    Women, older women especially, and a portion of non-African American working class whites have felt disempowered and disenfranchised by the way the primary season has been handled by the Democratic leadership.

    Especially here in MA, where our two senators have been strong Obama backers, but the primary vote went heavily in favor of Clinton.

    Obama and the Democratic leadership must offer some incentive and invitation to this group of voters--a significant portion of the Democratic base--to assure a victory in November.

    So far I see much more divisive behavior and rhetoric on their part than unifying. If this doesn't change quickly, the Democrats are in danger of losing the presidency.

    So threats of Supreme Court nominations are just not enough.

    What is Obama going to DO for these voters, beyond being the not-McCain? That is the question I'd like to see answered.

    Good point (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:09:00 PM EST
    On one hand we have a person who is arguably the most prepared to be president in modern American history.

    On the other hand we have... someone who MAY not overturn roe vs. Wade (if his assistants tell him not to vote for a right wing judge at the last minute, that is).

    What is wrong with people???

    I don't know if I won't vote for Obama... it depends on his cabinet now. I've said before, If I see a room full of Daschles in there, there's no way he's getting my vote.

    Sometime incompetence can be worse than being evil.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's first general election mistake... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:32:15 PM EST
    ...would be to snub Clinton (assuming he gets the nomination).

    Once Edwards dropped out, I though a Clinton/Obama ticket would be very strong.  Clinton's experience would get a broken government back in line, and VP Obama would get valuable experience to succeed Clinton.  That's 16 years of democratic leadership...WITH congress too!

    Still, Obama/Clinton would be alright.

    Clinton is smart and strong.  If she doesn't get the nomination, and doesn't get something (VP, senate majority, who knows), then I'll be convinced she got screwed by the party.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm already convinced of that. (5.00 / 7) (#73)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:35:00 PM EST
    then I'll be convinced she got screwed by the party.


    [ Parent ]
    I don't think this is exactly fair. (5.00 / 17) (#20)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:00:26 PM EST
    I won't vote for McCain, but I have all but lost my alligiance for the Dem Party.  Here's why.  Here is the first viable women for the Presidency ever.  And, while the media and often Obama himself used gender against her, the DNC and Dem leaders were silent.  This isn't just voting for Kerry becuase he's better than the alternative.  This is a lot of women who feel A)Hillary is best qualified by far to be President, and B)Hillary has been the recipient of unvarnished sexism from all corners while the Party stood by largely silent, except to insist she should quit.

    And a lot of men! (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:06:01 PM EST
    Not only is Hillary viable, she's qualified.  Is Barack?

    [ Parent ]
    bingo! (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by RalphB on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:09:44 PM EST
    that's the big question for the voters.

    [ Parent ]
    Men too! (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by cymro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:20:40 PM EST
    This is a lot of women who feel A)Hillary is best qualified by far to be President, and B)Hillary has been the recipient of unvarnished sexism from all corners while the Party stood by largely silent, except to insist she should quit.

    Even hampered by our more limited abilities to perceive such nuances, some of us men feel the same way.  

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    McCain is already wooring (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by oculus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    CLinton supporters.  He is the one defending her against Obama campaign tactics.

    Yeah, why is McCain wooing (5.00 / 8) (#103)
    by Coral on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    Clinton supporters while Obama continues to dismiss and ignore them?

    It is almost as if Obama wants to lose the general election.

    [ Parent ]

    Its not spite (5.00 / 10) (#29)
    by glennmcgahee on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:10:22 PM EST
    It will be fear that causes people to vote for McCain rather than Obama. I am a man. I've listened to Obama long enough to know that he isn't proposing anything but a sing-a-long. Thats a very dangerous place to be when our country is faced with so many very complex problems. I heard Obama praising Donald Rumsfield before that video was disappeared. How's that for judgement. Its the old Chicago olitics that I'm familiar with that really scares the bejeezus out of me though and Obama is a product of that. As for John McCain. He is an American patriot that will put our country and its people first and he is not a puppet of the far right although he may use them to get elected, he would do what's right for the country. This is not the time for an experiment although GE (MSNBC/NBC)(war profiteer) would love for us to continue as-is.

    The Best I Can Do At The Moment (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by MO Blue on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:12:48 PM EST
    is I'll see. I know McCain will try and put a conservative justice on the SCOTUS. I am just not convinced that Obama will put a pro-life justice on the court. If McCain nominates a conservative justice there is a slim chance that the Dems will block the nomination. OTOH if Obama nominates a pro-life candidate, the Dems will approve the nomination.

    Obama has from now until November to provide detailed information on what he will do if he obtains the WH.  Bloggers or other politicians won't convince me that he has a commitment to issues I care about. He will have to do it.

    Sandra Day Obama (5.00 / 6) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:20:10 PM EST
    That's pretty much what / who he is to corporate media interests. Just as Reagan thought that nominating a conservative judge who was a woman would bypass a lot of otherwise skeptical criticism, so too the corporate media believes that having a person who will not stand in their way be TEH FIRST AFRICAN AMERICAN PRESIDENT OMG will be as disarming.

    Figurehead. Trojan Horse. Puppet. Call it what you will. There will be a lot of disappointed people in Obama by 2010, moreso than would be disappointed in a November loss.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep. (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:46:20 PM EST
    HE will have to do it.  Women are now a special interest group in the election; he needs to come out hard with the Dem stances that make us vote Dem, and he also needs to show he understands how frustrating this election has been for women.

    It would be interesting to see what would happen if McCain did overtly go after women voters; how would the Obama campaign respond?  Would they run an attack ad?  What would they do?

    [ Parent ]

    Whew...I couldn't make it all the way through (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:13:14 PM EST
    the comments. I used to love FDL. Those posters think Sebelious is all Obama has to do to satisfy the Clinton supporters. That would only make it worse.

    Tokenism won't work. (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:19:14 PM EST
    Gosh, are the posters there women?

    [ Parent ]
    Some say they are "feminists" and don't (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by Teresa on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:28:29 PM EST
    understand why women see Hillary as deserving of that title.

    Sorry for the spelling of Sebelius. That would anger me beyond control. I don't really want to see Hillary as VP but I don't want to see the first female in that position do nothing to earn it. Plus, she's not my kind of Democrat. I'd take her here in Tennessee but we don't have to settle for that nationally.

    [ Parent ]

    Cnn called her the (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by zfran on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:34:07 PM EST
    "darling of the dem party" another ugh!

    [ Parent ]
    Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius is my cousin (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Palomino on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    Her father, John Gilligan, is a former governor of Ohio, where Kathleen grew up. Kathleen has done some terrific bridging between Democrats and Republicans in her adopted state of Kansas. She is a fine person. But, sorry, even Kathleen on the ticket won't be enough to get my vote for Obama. He needs to do that himself, and not by hiding behind another talented woman, the same way he does every time he "debates" Hillary and says "Me too." And so far he hasn't done it.

    [ Parent ]
    I for one will (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by camellia on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:17:56 PM EST
    have to think very hard before I will vote for Obama--the abuse that has come from his supporters against Hillary and anyone who supports her could have been stopped by him at any point.  Silence gives consent, it is said.

    And I do NOT think that she should accept the VP slot on the ticket.  She would be signing on for four years of humiliation, not to mention the vituperation that would come from his ratpack.  But -- as a Virginia resident who worked very hard to get Jim Webb into the Senate, I sincerely hope he doesn't take our Dem senator away from us.

    disagree about VP (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM EST
    Clinton could be an important VP.  Just look at the Cheney/Bush dynamic.

    Granted, I'd rather she get the President position, but Clinton is good enough and connected enough to push through a large agenda.

    [ Parent ]

    A small anecdote. (5.00 / 6) (#106)
    by Fabian on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:47:13 PM EST
    I'll fast forward through the family history of Dad being less than the perfect father and husband.  We'll just go to one Christmas.  Dad was working an extra part time job and was supposed to come home Christmas Morning after a third shift at a gas station.  He didn't show.  We were supposed to go to his father's house for Christmas Dinner that afternoon.  We did, without him.  He arrived an hour late - he had gone to dinner with his extramarital girl friend at her parents.

    My mother was upset, to put it mildly.  While she sat in the kitchen being consoled by her sisters-in-law, her father-in-law came in and told her that she should forgive his son because it was her duty as a wife.  It was the perfect illustration of what women are expected to do.  Not only was she expected to accept a multitude of insults and humiliations quietly, but to forgive the transgressor without even the courtesy of an apology.  

    That's where I am coming from.  Women demand so little.  Acknowledge our particular issues.  Make those issues a national priority.  Treat us with respect and dignity.  If you disrespect us, apologize.  Do not take us for granted.  Do not expect us to submit quietly out of some sense of duty.

    [ Parent ]

    had to talk him out of it because it might not look so good if he ran for, you know, President.

    He wants women to talk to their families and their pastors about choice, not trusting them to make up their silly little heads by themselves.

    Besides all the rest of the things that are wrong with him, this guy is no friend to women.

    I'd love to be able to vote Dem. I always have.  I thought I always would.

    But the more his supporters try to use Roe v. Wade to bludgeon me into submission, the more I want to take my car keys, some money, and escape just as fast as I can.

    [I just got back from FDL -- I couldn't believe the tone there. Feh.  This is not a party I am part of anymore.]

    McCain VP (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:21:18 PM EST
    Also important is that McCain's VP may end up serving out a term for him. McCain has both known health problems, probable health problems due to his captivity, and his age. I suspect his VP may be very important in that he may be running the show.

    It is a shame that our likely nominee is so unqualified and that misogyny is alive and well in the blogosphere and the DNC and media. Not what I hoped for in our country.

    Or she. He could run with Kay Bailey. (none / 0) (#47)
    by masslib on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:23:40 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hey - maybe McCain will pick Hillary. (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:26:28 PM EST
    He certainly seems to have more respect for her.

    [ Parent ]
    HA, then McCain and Obama have something (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by leis on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:29:23 PM EST
    in common. The only way I'd ever vote for either of them is if Hillary is on the ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain doesn't scare me. (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by ChiTownDenny on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:08 PM EST
    Not with a Dem controlled Congress.  Obama scares me.  I think of Carter and how long it took for Dems to win the Presidency afterward.

    [ Parent ]
    the Carter analogy haunts me. (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by clbrune on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    Carter is a great individual, but was a lousy president.  He was elected in the wake of Watergate and Republican self-destruction.

    Carter was elected as an agent of change (sound familiar), but it takes more than something new to actually get change done.

    (besides, the first Clinton was real change...away from Reagan/Bush...Iran/Contra...trickle-down economics...record deficit.   I'd like some more of THAT kind of change!)

    [ Parent ]

    obama scares me also. (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    there was so much more that has come out from rev wright, rezki. michelle's attitude that leave me asking "just who is this man"? if i feel that way, rest assured others do also.

    [ Parent ]
    now that would be interesting. (none / 0) (#166)
    by hellothere on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:15:51 PM EST
    i look for the gov of louisana to get serious consideration.

    [ Parent ]
    The weird thing is, (none / 0) (#92)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:40:16 PM EST
    in SUSA polls, McCain vastly improves his performance mainly with Huckabee.  

    OHIO:

    McCain:  39  Obama:  48  
    McCain/Huck:  39  Obama/Edwards:  51  
    McCain/Huck:  42  Obama/Sebelius:  42
    McCain/Huck:  42  Obama/Rendell:  40
    (and this is the most amusing:)
    McCain/Huck:  42  Obama/Hagel:  41

    Ya don't beat a Republican with a Republican.

    Ohio Polls

    Apparently, the thought Huckabee could be President does not actually scare the sh*t out of people the way I would HOPE.  What is the deal here?  Is it base motivation, or what?  Obviously, the number of undecided voters is great in all these polls.

    [ Parent ]

    The problem. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Radix on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    It's not going to be good enough for Obama, or anyone else, to simply state that he, Obama, is not McCain, that argument alone wont hold water. Obama is going to have to come up with some very good reasons as to why people should vote for him. Those arguments better not be of  the "be afraid" if I don't win variety either.

    Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    unfortunately, (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:30:48 PM EST
    your position on McCain vs Obama is not helped by people who say they despise (former) democrats who plan to sit out this election.  Democracy trumps the DNC for some people.  Besides, I'm one of those racists folks from Appalachia, you know.  (And anyone who knows Appalachia knows we don't take kindly to threats.)

    I disagree with (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:31:41 PM EST
    And, Democrats who switch sides out of spite or revenge will get far more than they bargained for, including pro-life Supreme Court Justices and right-wing ideologue federal judges.

    First "revenge" would have very little to do with those Democrats that will not vote Obama.

    Second the SCOTUS issue has been used over and over by both parties as a wrench to threaten voters. But things are not so simple and that argument won't work.

    The SCOTUS confirmation is up to Congress and for once we should make Congress accountable and demand they do their jobs. Yes the Pres. nominates but it is  Congress responsability who gets confirmed. Remember Robert Bork?

    Democrats voters will vote Dems for Congress and ensure a majority.

    The US Presidency is a different issue.

    Besides (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Andy08 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:09 PM EST
    Obama's "heart" was with the confirmation of John Roberts. I have little faith in him on this issue.

    [ Parent ]
    Kudos to Jane (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by lilburro on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:06 PM EST
    for asking these questions, even though as some people do here, there might be those that accuse her of OMG HELPING REPUBLICANS.  And kudos to Jeralyn for her last two paragraphs.

    IMO, Obama shouldn't have problems with female voters if he makes a concerted effort to understand women of all ages and the issues that concern them.  In the GE, if he moves from rallies to townhalls, to the smaller venues that Hillary is more comfortable in, he might have more success in connecting with these people.  He needs to identify issues women care about and stick up for them.  Making 'security moms' an issue again would be McCain doing just that - identifying what women care about, safety for their families (just one of many issues) and politicizing it.  And of course if Obama is percieved as sidelining Hillary, then he will be working on thin ice with a lot of women angry at the media coverage.

    Off topic, but why did my comment... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:33:15 PM EST
    disappear?

    It was related to this topic, that the Obama supporters who feign hope will drive away women who see the hate expressed for Clinton.

    Because unlike (none / 0) (#111)
    by Jeralyn on Mon May 26, 2008 at 04:49:15 PM EST
    what you just wrote, you phrased it in site-violating manner.

    [ Parent ]
    Violating how? (none / 0) (#152)
    by citizen53 on Mon May 26, 2008 at 05:07:05 PM EST
    I am serious.  I see comments that are much worse in terms of depicting Obama and others.

    All I said is that the disconnect between those who say they believe in hope, yet treat people with disdain could drive women away from Obama toward McCain.

    I believe that such conduct constitutes hatemongering in the context of the campaign.

    Sorry, but I strongly dispute that I have violated any of the rules here, and I treat people with respect.

    [ Parent ]