home

Pew Report: Support for Obama Slides Among White Women

Via Politico, the Pew Research Center has a new report, available here, finding 49% of white women and 35% of Democratic white women now have a negative perception of Obama. Politico summarizes:

Forty-nine percent of white women view Obama unfavorably, while only 43 percent hold a favorable opinion. In February, 36 percent of these women viewed Obama unfavorably, while 56 percent had a positive perception of the likely Democratic nominee.

Over the same period, Democratic white women’s negative view of Obama increased from 21 percent to 35 percent, while their positive view decreased from 72 percent to 60 percent — roughly the same rate as white women overall.

For men,

White men, in general and among Democrats, have shown only a slight drop-off in their perception of Obama — one-third of the shift seen in white women. About 20 percent of Democratic white men have an unfavorable view of Obama, a figure which has remained stable since February.

Pew also has a report on favorability and electability in the general election.

Obama's favorability has not just declined with white women but with Independents.

Here's another new Pew report on Hispanics in the 2008 election and in particular, Puerto Rico's primary

Comments closed.

< Clinton Campaign Accepts FL/MI Broke Rules | Hillary's Excellent Arguments for Fighting for Florida and Michigan >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Ahhhhh! Another reason "they" are (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:56:48 AM EST
    trying to wrap this up and push Hillary out. They can feel those numbers poppin' and droppin'

    All I know is (5.00 / 13) (#3)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:59:27 AM EST
    my wife makes a face whenever his name gets mentioned.  And she's a very good Democrat.

    You mean (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:00 PM EST
    she's not bitter, racist, clinging to God and Guns and xenophobia?

    GASP! Where is my fainting couch?

    [ Parent ]

    Does Papa say he's (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jondee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:42:16 PM EST
    gonna stck 'em in the House of Detention?

    [ Parent ]
    What the mama saw (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Steve M on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:43 PM EST
    It was against the law.

    [ Parent ]
    Gee....wasn't it just yesterday when someone (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:01:14 PM EST
    was on TL saying his support by that bloc was going up....musta been an obamatroll.

    Look at this...guess who fares better on who is trusted, i.e., the economy....

    link

    McCain is better (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:20:25 PM EST
    on Iraq.  22% of Dems; 88% of Repubs and 49% of indies (it doesn't say what Obama gets just that McCain is statistically higher).  25% of Dems trust McCain.  McCain get 30 and older (where Clinton has been strongest with 40 and older)

    Uhhhh who thinks Obama is going to win?

    [ Parent ]

    And don't forget (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:22:40 PM EST
    Obama has become Mr. Gaffe-happy -- on foreign policiy issues.  I suspect this will not get better as time goes on.

    [ Parent ]
    Gaffe-a-day express (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:45:39 PM EST
    as he is being called in articles.  Lots of fun from now until convention.

    [ Parent ]
    In a way this is good. (none / 0) (#58)
    by Salo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:46:02 PM EST
    there's something fishy about the debacle in Iraq. and maybe the party doesn't need to be tainted with te defeat there. let a GOP President sign the retreat order methinks.

    [ Parent ]
    I really hate to say it..... but I'm one of them (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by dianem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:52:46 PM EST
    Obama's foreign policy and financial knowledge have not impressed me, while McCain seems to be very current on various issues. I'm hoping that Obama is trying to shut down this primary in order to spend some time studying issues before the first debate with McCain, because needs to nail the debate. His campaign's hope seems to be that they can label McCain as too old and not mentally fit to be President, but if Obama doesn't look really good in comparison to McCain at the debate then that argument will fail. And so far, in spite of a few gaffes, McCain doesn't look particularly doddering. He has kept up a rigourous schedule of appearances at a time when most candidates would be taking a well-deserved break from campaigning.

    Again, I won't vote for McCain. I'm not a Democrat anymore, but I will never become a Republican. But a lot of people don't feel that way, and every vote for McCain in a purple state will matter more than mine in California.

    [ Parent ]

    CA here too (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:07:02 PM EST
    I will vote Repub for the first time ever as a statement.  We're CA, there is no way we aren't going blue.. it's an empty gesture, so what the heck.... I think it's only an issue for people in purple states.

    [ Parent ]
    Please vote for who you believe in (none / 0) (#149)
    by dianem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:45:48 PM EST
    Don't vote Republican as a protest. If you want to protest, write in somebody - Edwards, Clinton, Mickey Mouse. It doesn't really matter. Heck, I might write in "Ferraro" or "Gloria Steinam" to protest sexism (although if I write Ferraro, given the current climate, it will be perceived as a racist statement regardless of my intent, so I probably won't).

    [ Parent ]
    I am writing in Hillary if she doesn't (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:18:56 PM EST
    get the nomination. I will not vote for Obama because I don't want to be responsible for putting another inept president in the WH. We have one there now, and look how that turned out. I won't vote for McCain because he represents the party whose policies got us into the mess we are now in. I will write in Hillary because I think she is the one who can get us out of the mess we are in. Obama can't. He just isn't good enough. Sorry to have to say that, but it's true.

    [ Parent ]
    I am writing in Hillary if she doesn't (none / 0) (#193)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    get the nomination. I will not vote for Obama because I don't want to be responsible for putting another inept president in the WH. We have one there now, and look how that turned out. I won't vote for McCain because he represents the party whose policies got us into the mess we are now in. I will write in Hillary because I think she is the one who can get us out of the mess we are in. Obama can't. He just isn't good enough. Sorry to have to say that, but it's true.

    [ Parent ]
    I won't vote for McCain either. (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:48 PM EST
    But no way is Obama getting my vote.

    [ Parent ]
    Same here. (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:56:33 PM EST
    I can't vote for McCain or Obama. It's a matter of principle with both.

    [ Parent ]
    The Numbers (none / 0) (#146)
    by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:43:10 PM EST
    McCain leads Obama on Iraq in the Pew poll 46% to 43% -- within the margin of error. That is an improvement from April when the comparable numbers for Iraq were McCain 50% and Obama 38%.

    The same poll has Obama ahead of McCain on the following issues: Energy (+18); Economy (+15); and Health Care (+17).

    Obama leads McCain in the poll nationally 47% to 44%.

    And to answer your question, I think Obama is going to win. Obama is currently as a low point compared to McCain -- and yet he's still ahead. The primary campaign phase will wrap up next week and the general election attack on McCain will begin in earnest next week. I expect to see Obama's numbers v. McCain to steadily improve as McCain gets stuck with the Republican label.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree that Obama is at a low (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by dianem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    The right has been very easy on him lately. He hit a low over the Wright issue, and then over "bitter-gate", but he has rebounded and is currently getting good press. I believe that Obama will not hit a low until right-wing 527's start attacking in September.

    The fact that the numbers are as they are right now should not be comforting. Different polls give different results, but some of the numbers are quite troubling. McCain should be much lower on Iraq, given his involvement with the administration. It's really too eary to tell, but I don't agree that Obama is at a low in terms of support.

    [ Parent ]

    Dream on (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    Obama can't even hold the party together and his attacks on McCain have been beyond pathetic. It's all in the "I'm soooo disappointed" vein of whining.

    [ Parent ]
    In a "Can't Lose" year (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:03:05 PM EST
    for the Dems, Obama should be trouncing McCain in the polls now.  His numbers should be besting McCain at least as well as Clinton's are .


    [ Parent ]
    He has no cushion. (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by davnee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:58:47 PM EST
    This is not good at all.  And this is a natural Dem cycle no less!  We can't really know what his pre-GE campaign cushion will be until after the convention bounce, of course, but recent trends have been for the R to close hard at the end of the campaign.  So if he is not out ahead by strong double digits at the end of August it will be dire in my opinion.  Obama better hope this is not a long, hot summer.  

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed (3.00 / 0) (#179)
    by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:05:57 PM EST
    davnee,

    Agreed on almost all points. I wish the cushion were bigger right now. But that's part of the short-term price of the longer Dem primary season. McCain has had an almost free ride for 3 months while the Dems have battled each other.

    But, as you say, we won't really be able to take measure of the race until after the post-convention bounce. I expect Obama to have a healthy lead by Labor Day.

    [ Parent ]

    You understand (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:13:07 PM EST
    That there will be no "post convention bounce" for Obama, don't you?  The Dems' convention is the last week in August and the Republicans start the next Monday-  at best he gets a few days' bump (although it will be Labor Day weekend, so many people will not be avaiable to be polled).

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:18:28 PM EST
    if some commenters understand the difference between the GE and the primary.

    Or if they even care.

    See, if Clinton isn't running, who is Obama going to blame for his next scandal?

    The media won't let him blame their true love, McCain, the way they let him trash Clinton night and day.

    No, should he become the nominee, Obama will be all by his lonesome and will have to answer for his own problems.

    I look very forward to that. And I hope Hillary doesn't concede, and that the DNC and SD's come crawling to her on their knees and beg her to be the nominee in August.

    We need this woman as President. Anything else would be disastrous for America.

    [ Parent ]

    And there are (none / 0) (#195)
    by magisterludi on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:22:47 PM EST
    more Pfleger tapes (with Farrakhan) airing this afternoon.  

    [ Parent ]
    Cool.... (none / 0) (#209)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:34:47 PM EST
    These guys are a laugh-riot..pass the popcorn.  

    Can we nominate Wright/Pfleger?  Seriously, as loony as they are they have a better chance of getting us out of Iraq than any of the stooges.  They're probably more willing to address the prison problem too.

    I might write them in...

    [ Parent ]

    look i can go get my polls showing (none / 0) (#241)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:02:23 PM EST
    obama losing. so you know that is a rather futile exercise. please don't take us for dumb women. we know our stuff.

    [ Parent ]
    Yea, But... (none / 0) (#244)
    by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:10:57 PM EST
    I'm not sure if you're responding to me. But I wasn't just cherry picking from any poll that is favorable to Obama. I was providing specific numbers from the poll that is the subject of this thread.

    [ Parent ]
    i read it as a referral on (none / 0) (#240)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:59:20 PM EST
    a blog that obama's numbers was also falling in the aa voting block. go figure! sorry i can't quote the source. i always try and make myself remember that.

    [ Parent ]
    It's both reassuring (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by stillife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:03:19 PM EST
    and humbling to know that I'm part of a demographic.  I always knew I wasn't that unique.  

    We are not (5.00 / 12) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:05:26 PM EST
    unique, unjustified, bitter losers, or bad Democrats.

    [ Parent ]
    This entire nomination process ... (5.00 / 22) (#10)
    by Inky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:01 PM EST
    has raised feminist hackles in me that I didn't even know I possessed. Aside from the likely tragic political fallout from this horror of a Democratic primary, I know that I have been forever changed by what I've watched unfold.

    [ Parent ]
    me too (5.00 / 18) (#29)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:33 PM EST
    Back in December I was still trying to draft Al Gore, and Clinton was just another good candidate, like Edwards and Obama, to me, back then. I didn't know much about any of them.

    Now I am back almost as raised-hackled as I was in the late 60's when I could not even apply for jobs on the "M" jobs pages of the newspaper.

    This has been ugly, ugly, ugly.

    [ Parent ]

    and whats more I do not see much (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    difference between Obama and McCain on environmental armagedden, now that I know more about Obama. So theres that too.

    So now I have no reason to resist going to the convention. Either he will lose to McCain per electoral-college.com, homindviews.com or he will win and his handlers are clearly the same as the last boss.

    At least at the convention there is some chance we can win, and not only get an incredible powerfull real Democrat which will prove we DON'T have to cave on Democratic principles to win. It will either be Clinton,or Obama or Gore to break the tie.

    A 2 out of 3 chance is better than losing with Obama anyway.

    But also, either Gore or Clinton will win the WH.

    [ Parent ]

    Big Difference On Environment (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    There is a huge difference between Obama and McCain on the environment.

    Last year, Obama got a 63% score from the League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Of the 15 key environmental votes, Obama only voted wrong ONCE and was absent four times due to campaigning.

    McCain got a ZERO. He missed all 15 votes.

    For the total of 2005-2006 combined, McCain got a 41% score, while Obama got a 96% pro-environment score from LCV. That's a big difference that should not be readily dismissed.

    [ Parent ]

    He voted for the Energy Bill and has been (none / 0) (#181)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:09:45 PM EST
    very pro corn ethanol. If the Energy Bill is the "only voted wrong ONCE" vote, well . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Energy Votes were Right (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:23:40 PM EST
    LCV determined that Obama voted right on every important energy bill vote last year. The wrong vote was on the water resources bill. You can find it at lcv.org under Scorecard.

    [ Parent ]
    What I want someone to ask him is (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:32:05 PM EST
    with all the starving people in the world, especially in Africa, how he justifies putting food in a gas tank to run a car?

    [ Parent ]
    Ask Hillary (none / 0) (#222)
    by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:06:45 PM EST
    Have you asked Hillary? Her goal is to produce "60 billion gallons of home-grown biofuels available for cars and trucks by 2030."

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has the exact same ethanol goal (none / 0) (#230)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:21:39 PM EST
    60 billion by 2030. Plus congress has. But Obama puts way more emphasis on ethanol than Clinton.

    Only Hillary has the plan that actually can switch us to a carbon free economy.

    Read this side by side comparison


    [ Parent ]

    Me Three (5.00 / 9) (#133)
    by Robot Porter on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:32:51 PM EST
    I'm a man, and I always thought I was fairly aware of these things, but this election made the sexism in society even clearer.

    If the most powerful female politician in America can be treated this way, I know that the situation for "ordinary" women is much worse than I thought.

    And I thought it was pretty bad.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too. (5.00 / 14) (#34)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:10 PM EST
    I didn't become a Clinton supporter until Edwards dropped out, but something happened to me when she lost Iowa: I was shocked at how sad I was, as a woman, that even our best would be mocked in defeat.

    That said, I'm not surprised his support among women is dropping. Most Dem women do have a streak of feminism at heart, and eventually the sexism and the sweeties were going to get to us.

    [ Parent ]

    Same here (5.00 / 10) (#45)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    speaking only for myself, I am pretty sure that the level of anger I have over Obama's disgusting behavior is on top of the anger I have for GWB for the past 2 terms of indignance toward the people of this country.

    This isn't really the female in me, it's the fairness meter that says these two men are cut from the same cloth (someone on early morning news this morning showed a geneology chart that says Obama is related to both Cheney and Bush) and they are bad, bad, bad for the country.

    I have a really hard time dealing with bad senior management in the corporate world, too. This country can be so much better than these two men will give it the chance to be.


    [ Parent ]

    Disgusting behavior? (1.00 / 3) (#78)
    by Curious on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:01:12 PM EST
    I have no idea what you are talking about and your standards seem ecccentric, to say the least. i can respect that there has been unacceptable sexist behavior expressed during the campaign (especially the media, and Senator McCain who man visitors to this site will be voting for if their first choice is not selected), But disgusting behaviour? You've got a mighty low threshhold.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama started (5.00 / 9) (#114)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    offending me with "99 probelms and a b!tch ain't one of them", and it was only a portent of what was to come.  Low threshold? No, just an expectation of maturity from someone running for POTUS.

    [ Parent ]
    So because of a song (1.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Curious on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    allegedly (by the very unpartisan Taylor Marsh and by no-one else that I can find) played and possibly not played at a victory party by someone else you have decided that he is as sexist as GW BUSH?  Who manhandled the female  Chancellor of Germany cliaming he was giving her a backrub?

    I understand you are disappointed that the wife of a former President  and former Wal-MArt lawyer looks unlikely to become Presidential candidate  for the Democratic party. But you're clutching at straws.

    [ Parent ]

    When (5.00 / 10) (#161)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    are you guys going to get a clue. It's not about Hillary it's about Obama and his problems. Hillary isn't keeping us from voting for Obama, Obama is. He's unqualified and anti woman.

    [ Parent ]
    George W. Bush (none / 0) (#182)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:10:16 PM EST
    is not running in this election. I believe I said that the song was the beginning - not the only thing. The way he has run his campaign makes me uncomfortable to say the least about how he would run the oval office. Senator Obama himself has admitted that he needs to work on the way he interacts with women. I think he needs to work on it some more before he runs for POTUS. But heck, sweetie, if his sexist attitudes work for you, and it appears you have some of your own, then you go right on ahead and vote for him.  I wouldn't dream of telling anyone else how to vote.

    [ Parent ]
    I challenge you to point out (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Curious on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:25:08 PM EST
    ...any sexism in my posts.

    Failing to support Hillary is not sexism, as far as I'm aware.

    [ Parent ]

    Try this (5.00 / 6) (#219)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:57:18 PM EST
    I understand you are disappointed that the wife of a former President

    How about a second term senator? She has qualifications other than being someone's wife.  Why did you choose to describe her that way?

    [ Parent ]

    The real George W. Bush might not be running (none / 0) (#250)
    by Grace on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:20:53 PM EST
    but I feel like the Democrats have put up his clone and said "Vote for George W. Obama!  He's a nice guy!  He can learn on the job!  He's an outsider so he'll be able to change things in Washington!  Hope!  Change!  He's the new Undivider!"

    I am so not buying the product or the brand.


    [ Parent ]

    Nutcrackers in Senator Clinton's image? (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by camellia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:26:09 PM EST
    T-shirts saying "Bro, not Ho"?  Suggesting she was "pimping out" her daughter?  Or that she would gladly sacrifice her daughter in order to get to the White House?  Or that periodically (winkwink), she gets unpredictable?  By what standard are you judging these actions, sweetie?

    [ Parent ]
    I acknowledged... (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Curious on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:31:22 PM EST
    in my opening post that there has been unacceptable sexism in the campaign. But neither campaign can be held responsible for the opinions of their miost rabid supporters.

    [ Parent ]
    And what have you done to denounce it? (none / 0) (#210)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:40:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    actually they are responsible in that (none / 0) (#253)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:26:23 PM EST
    the obama campaign stirred up the racial animosity and then egged on the anti woman members of the press and his campaign. go look at that video with his brushing her off his shoulders and wiping his shoes. please!

    [ Parent ]
    And Moreover... (3.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Curious on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    saying that Obama is adding to the wrongs perpetrated BY George W BUSH is just plain crazy.

    The reason why he is defeating your candidate is because he has a better chance of representing himself as an anti-war candidate than does Hilary Rodham Clinton, And there is an enormous wave of revulsion against this insane and illegal and murderous  war spreading across the world and many activists see Senator Obama as the person who spoke in opposition to it soonest.

    And they want the war to end.

    Don't blame Obama for Bush's war. Or for his anti-feminism

    [ Parent ]

    He won (5.00 / 9) (#111)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:19:55 PM EST
    because he gamed caucuses in red states.

    And if he wins the GE, I hope you won't be too disappointed that he isn't the anti-war candidate you thought he was.

    As proof:  He talked the big talk when he was outside of the senate, but when he won as senator, he funded the war, without even a senate floor speech in protest.

    Hope you see him for what he is someday.

    [ Parent ]

    You do realize activists (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by davnee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM EST
    are less important in a GE than a primary don't you?  And good to know that you consider Obama such a staunch anti-war candidate when he could never do more to speak out or act against the war than re-record his 2002 speech so that he could make better political hay out of it.  What a champion!

    [ Parent ]
    First, it is soooo easy to be outside (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:33:24 PM EST
    of the Senate, in this case, and make a statement and a speech that you are against something. When you get to the senate and say, I don't know how I would've voted on the "war" bill if I was here during the vote, is something entirely different, which is what he said and I am paraphrasing. What he did then in the senate, was to vote the exact and I mean exactly the same way as Sen. Clinton on each and every subsequent vote regarding the war. Read, learn, decide for yourself.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:40:50 PM EST
    Don't blame Obama for Bush's war. Or for his anti-feminism

    Obama keeps voting for the war, I'll blame him all I want.  Furthermore, I don't trust him to end it.  He hasn't the experience nor the skills.

    At least you admit he's anti-feminist.....
    Claws come out
    Periodically when she's feeling down
    Tea party's
    Can't take care of her home, can't take care of WH

    You aren't joking. That's what's funny.  LOL

    BTW, new commentors are limited to 10 comments in a 24 hour period.

    [ Parent ]

    fine, sweetie. (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:41:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I do blame him (5.00 / 4) (#147)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:44:57 PM EST
    He could have gotten off his fanny and said something.

    [ Parent ]
    The war (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:53:02 PM EST
    is not going to win an election for Obama. He's campaigning on "weak and right" which loses every time.

    In 1972 only 20% of the electorate approved of Vietnam. There was a draft going on. Do you realize that the anti war candidate lost in a landslide? Thinking that there are enough single issue anti war voters out there to win an election is clueless.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#166)
    by cmugirl on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:57:23 PM EST
    Don't blame Obama for Bush's war. Or for his anti-feminism

    We shouldn't blame Obama for his anti-feminism???

    [ Parent ]

    Need better trolls (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by RalphB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    that's really funny.

    Don't blame Obama for Bush's war. Or for his anti-feminism

    That's what they get for committing truth.


    [ Parent ]

    "Don't blame Obama for Bush's war.. (none / 0) (#196)
    by Curious on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:22:50 PM EST
    ..or for his [i.e. Bush's] Anti-feminism. But I'm delighted to have given you some entertainment. It's a tough time. Most commentators consider that your candidate's campaign is drawing slowly to a close.

    [ Parent ]
    Bush has female Cabinet members, (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:45:52 PM EST
    and female advisors. I hate to defend him, but he has not shown the anti-feminism that Obama has, not by a long shot. Obama has a problem with women, he has no respect for them as people, entire whole people. It shows, and we women don't like it. We have earned respect in every aspect of society, social, business and government. We do make a difference in people's lives. Hillary Clinton has made much more of a difference, a good difference, in people's lives than Obama ever thought of doing. Obama is mostly about himself, Hillary is about others. That is why she will win the election, and why Obama won't. And as for who has done what in this term in the Senate, Obama has 41% of votes on record as Hillary Clinton does. Less than half the number of votes in the same term. Doesn't sound like he is doing much now, so why expect him to do anything later??

    [ Parent ]
    I think Waldenpond (none / 0) (#201)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:25:55 PM EST
    was being ironic.

    [ Parent ]
    i gave you a one due to the fact (none / 0) (#245)
    by hellothere on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:12:57 PM EST
    that you misrepresented the fact that obama  contributed to the most antifeminine campaign i have ever seen on any level. i find that insulting. your personal opinions are yours but please don't put distortions like that in here.

    [ Parent ]
    I was an Edwards supporter too ... (5.00 / 8) (#128)
    by Inky on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    Back when this campaign process began, Hillary was pretty low on my list of Democratic candidates. I moved to her camp only after Edwards dropped out of the race and Obama started circulating those deceitful "Harry and Louise" fliers in New Hampshire. When this process began I so wanted this campaign to be about the issues and not about ID politics. But I have found Hillary to be so courageous in the face such rampant sexism and misogyny that I finally understand the appeal of identity politics. And who would have thought that she would morph into the FDR-style politician that I was hoping Edwards would be? I'm glad that at least Elizabeth Edwards had the smarts to vote for her, even if her husband chose to join the inevitability bandwagon.

    [ Parent ]
    NWHiker, is that you? (none / 0) (#88)
    by camellia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:08:17 PM EST
    Rosella in disguise here.   I have supported Hillary all along, with Edwards as my second choice, but until Iowa I would have accepted Obama as the nominee.  Now, not so much (in fact, not at all!)

    [ Parent ]
    Yup! (none / 0) (#115)
    by NWHiker on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    That would be me! Good to see you!

    [ Parent ]
    Me too... (5.00 / 7) (#40)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:25 PM EST
    and that might be one of the only positives to come out of this horrible mess.

    Women have woken up, and found that they are strong.

    [ Parent ]

    madamab.... (5.00 / 11) (#84)
    by miriam on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:05:53 PM EST
    You say: "Women have woken up, and found that they are strong."

    I usually agree with you, and while I fervently hope you are correct, I don't think there's yet enough evidence to assert this.  We now can see that women have not made much substantial difference in these primaries (excepting the ones that voted for Hillary on the basis of the sexism thrown at her).  We've written letters and emails to the DNC asking that it recognize and criticize the media; we've written and emailed and called the media ourselves in complaint, we've done the same with the SDs....and what have we gotten?  Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee.

    If women really want to change the sexist attitude that dominated this election, and apparently this country, we must call their bluff on unity and stand our ground.  We cannot approve the current Democratic leaders' contention that, no matter what is done to Clinton and, by extension, to all women, we will dutifully "return to the fold" (as Pelosi so quaintly phrased it).  This entire primary season has smacked of "the fix is in" and women be damned.

    I'm not returning to the fold and I'm NOT voting for an inexperienced, ethically-challenged, timid dilettante to be our chief executive and commander-in-chief at this particularily dangerous time in world history.

    We'll have to wait to see how strong and determined women are.      

    [ Parent ]

    I think we're pretty strong, (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:20 PM EST
    and this is one area in which I'm optimistic. Never again will we be able to think that the fight for equality is over. And new womens' groups have formed because of the rampant misogyny in this election. We all knew about racism, but I think a lot of us were deluding ourselves about just how bad the misogyny and sexism were. Not any more.

    Additionally, if people think that Obama will reach out to women between now and then, and we'll just all roll over and lick his hand, I have two unprintable words for those people. :-)

    [ Parent ]

    I think that the sexism and misogyny (5.00 / 8) (#151)
    by jeffinalabama on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:47:52 PM EST
    of this nomination fight will do more to lead to emerging women's movements in the political arena, with the strength that solidarity,, if not unity will bring.

    I also think that many of us who are long-term democrats, liberals, and social activists, not simply political activists, are disgusted by the misogyny.

    I for one am shocked by the level of sexist vitriol against Clinton. This has come from one side of the campaign, and has been enabled by many, not all, of the MSM and many on the blogs, as well.

    If being a democrat means being a misogynist or a sexist, maybe my party has changed and left me behind.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with both you and Miriam (5.00 / 3) (#189)
    by MMW on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:15:07 PM EST
    We have found our strength through Hillary Clinton's fight. Many of us regardless of ethnicity see too much of our battles in what she is going through and standing up against. I know I've never felt as powerful as I now do watching her hold her head up.

    But we have not harnessed this strength sufficiently to make a difference, to be heard. Too many of us reject what has happened but will not see it through to its logical conclusion in order to gain and keep that strength. Perhaps it will be revealed in November, may be sooner.

    I don't think I can go back (to the blinders), I don't think you or Miriam can, but I'm pretty certain there are those who will.

    [ Parent ]

    Ditto (5.00 / 14) (#54)
    by davnee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:59 PM EST
    I've never been a protester type.  I'm pretty laid back when it comes to politics.  I excuse a lot.  But this primary has sparked something in me, a rage and disaffection, that I've never felt before.  I think it is seeing the malign acceptance of sexism that is rampant everywhere, and on the Left no less, in sharp relief against the pc racism police that is out in force and compelling us to goose step toward electoral disaster in November.  You have a ridiculously unworthy candidate being treated like fine china, his faults blamed on everyone but himself, while a terrificly worthy candidate is being spit on and kicked from every direction.  It's just too much.  When a presidential candidate can flick a woman, who is his superior in age, experience and seniority in the U.S. frickin' Senate, like dirt off his shoulders and sh!t on his shoes in public and draw not even a single reproach from any adult, then it's a world gone mad and a process that I will never condone or reward.  Never!

    [ Parent ]
    McCain made a statement about Father Pfleger (5.00 / 8) (#126)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:26:47 PM EST
    this morning that was far more eloquent and direct to the element that needed to be addressed than anything Obama said.

    McCain gave her very high compliments and said that such comments were absolutely horrible. It was a really nice statement, and, again, he made Obama look like an amateur.

    [ Parent ]

    Own It (5.00 / 11) (#67)
    by Athena on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    When women stop being afraid of their anger, the world will change.

    In my view, feminists accept women's anger as a rational response to a patriarchal world.  And they are not susceptible to boys telling them to "lighten up."

    [ Parent ]

    When someone tells me (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM EST
    to sit down, shut up, and let the rational men decide everything, all the while patting me on the head like a little puppy dog who just peed on the carpet, it gets me...a tad incensed.

    The way I see it, the people who do not approve of Obama are, in large part, the ones going with the facts and issues. And the Obama supporters are, in large part, completely immune to any factual statements you might make to support your arguments. This makes them the irrational ones, not us.

    Honestly, I don't know of one concrete reason to vote for Obama.

    Party affiliation - that is an intangible that does not reflect reality. As far as I'm concerned, Barack Obama is no FDR Democrat.

    The Supreme Court? If young women don't care enough to protect themselves by voting for Hillary, why should I bother? Let them suffer the consequences. They are the ones throwing us, who marched for their GD rights, under the bus.

    As Sinead O'Connor sang, "My womb is not a football for you."

    [ Parent ]

    The Patriarchy Made Me Do It (none / 0) (#71)
    by jondee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:54:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    me too, and I'm a guy (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    Must be the inner feminist in me. Or maybe I just care about people in general and don't like to see bigotry of any kind. Imagine that.

    [ Parent ]
    Good for you! (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by madamab on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:34 PM EST
    I think anyone who calls him/herself a liberal, should be utterly ashamed of Obama's behavior throughout this campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    and disgusted by the behavior of many of his followers and advisors.

    [ Parent ]
    Or anyone who can imagine his (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM EST
    wife, daughter, sister or mother treated that way. I want to ask Obama how he would feel if someone treated his daughters the way he and his followers treat Hillary Clinton. Are they sh!t to be brushed off someone's shoe?? If not, why is Hillary? If so, how can he claim to be a uniter if he basically sees 51% of the population as second-class citizens?
    Remember, this is the man who had to "interview" Michelle's potential boss before he would "allow her" to take the job. When I read that in a Chicago newspaper, I knew I would never vote for him. I am not a second-class anything, never mind second-class citizen. Neither are Obama's daughters. Someone should tell him. Soon.

    [ Parent ]
    We are "just" (5.00 / 7) (#17)
    by Fabian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:20:02 PM EST
    one of the most reliable voter demographics in terms of actually casting a vote.
    Older?  Check.
    Female? Check.
    White - largest demographic currently around?  Check.

    Any candidate needs more than just older white women to win, but any candidate that can't appeal to them has a serious handicap.  Unlike horse racing, there's no prize for coming in second in an election.

    [ Parent ]

    And in horse racing, (5.00 / 1) (#233)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:35:00 PM EST
    front runners tend to tire in the stretch. Unless they are champions, and Obama isn't a champion by any stretch of the imagination. And now more of his "past performances" are coming out, it's going to be a tough run down that stretch with that alpha mare, Hillary, dogging his every step. Sort of like last year's Belmont..the filly stumbled and almost went down at the break from the gate. But she rallied to make an awesome stretch run. Collared the Horse of the Year in the stretch, looked him in the eye and dared him to outrun her. He tried, but just couldn't get there. She beat the best colts in the country. Here is the race, in case you want to see it again.

    [ Parent ]
    This is huge -- women are about 60% (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:11:28 PM EST
    of Dem voters.  So the survey's result of a sizeable lead still for Obama over Clinton is almost all angry white guys -- as an early analysis at pollster.com saw from the start and predicted would be the pivotal demographic, not white women.  Yet the angry white guys in the media and Obama, too, still like to blame it on us "typical white women."

    Well, if the Dems rely on the angry-guy demographic that led the Republicans to victory, let the Dems also deal with the detritus of that -- and especially when there is not a Hillary Clinton to motivate them.  The angry young white guys, the onetime Reagan Dems, can be a very fickle group easily led astray.

    Yeah and I bet they get tired of riding those... (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:16:46 PM EST
    ...unity ponies real quick.

    [ Parent ]
    They will love riding them, but (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:40:17 PM EST
    cleaning up after them is another thing entirely. A horse or pony produces an average of 20 lbs. of manure a day. More if you overfeed. So when someone talks about unity ponies, I always remember how much crap they produce and pass on it.

    [ Parent ]
    Impulsive - marketing demographic. (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Fabian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:44 PM EST
    Why do you think marketers target a certain age and gender group?  

    They are the easiest to part from their dollars - that's why.  Older women aren't fickle.  Marketing to older women is done because that demographic tends to be more brand loyal, less likely to switch.  Target young men if you want a fast buck, target older women if you want a long term investment.

    [ Parent ]

    I know -- good point --- as I used to work (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    in marketing/advertising/public relations.   And now that I'm in the middle-aged women demo, I can see why we're so brand-loyal.   It's just so much work to keep trying out all those new products that, despite their promises, really will not make me young again.  And all in all, I don't want to be young again.  That's really too much emotional work. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Obama has work to do (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Panhandle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:14:18 PM EST
    And not just with white women, but I think he can overcome. In 2004 Kerry only won 44% of white women... In 2000 Gore won 48%... I think Obama can do better than Kerry for sure, if only cause Kerry was frickin terrible, and McBush is a nightmare dressed in an ugly sweater.

    And did Kerry or Gore (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:17:57 PM EST
    win their elections?

    [ Parent ]
    Gore Did (none / 0) (#20)
    by Panhandle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:32 PM EST
    But it was stolen and he didn't fight for it. Kerry did too actually, but Ohio got stolen that year. Will this year be stolen as well? Anybody's guess...

    [ Parent ]
    Just like Obama is stealing the primary (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:28:40 PM EST
    FL 2000 is not a good comparison when Obama is "winning" this nomination with the help of the DNC's disenfranchisement of FL & MI. Furthermore, I know this isn't popular to say, BUT the fact is the 2000 election never should have been that close in the first place -- If Gore had won WV, as Bill Clinton did and as Hillary can, or if he would have won his home state of TN, he would have won WITHOUT FL.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL Hope..... (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    ...I just have to laugh and laugh and laugh at the meme about the Clintons caring for themselves more than for the Democratic Party. With his charisma and brains and being from the South, does anyone doubt that Clinton would have had a much easier time being a Republican? He could have been the second coming of Reagan and revered to this day because Republicans don't turn on their successful presidents. But for some reason he wanted to be a Democrat. I wonder why?

    [ Parent ]
    This Primary is not "Stolen" (none / 0) (#46)
    by Panhandle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    That line just irks me. Unless you believe Clinton "deserved" the nomination for whatever reason, then the process wasn't "stolen". It's a competition.

    And there is no comparison to this primary season and FL 2000. One was a GE, with the rights to vote that accompany it. One is a primary, ruled by the idiocy of the party that is having it.


    [ Parent ]

    Oh so sorry to irk you (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:13 PM EST
    but anyone who defends NOT COUNTING VOTES for any reason, whether they be GWB or Obama, is stealing an election. Furthermore, crack open a book and learn yourself a little something -- a primary election is a valid election -- it is run & certified by the states just like the GE is, so your irrational argument that it is NOT ok to "not count votes" in the GE but perfectly acceptable to "not count votes" in a primary is horsesh!t. If you don't like that plain truth then maybe you are supporting the wrong guy.

    [ Parent ]
    Politics is Perception (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    The dirty tactic stories that have come out of at least 3 of the caucus states, the almost event in IN that CNN caught, and now them trying to refuse to settle MI unless they also get some of Senator Clinton's delegates have led to the perception that he has played the rules at a very low level.

    After CNN's story on his dirty politics in Illinois, there's more credibility to the perception today.

    BTW, if Senator Clinton wins the nomination in August because of the SD's, that is not stealing. It is exactly the role given to the SD's.

    [ Parent ]

    Many of us believe that it already has been. (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by honora on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    Have you heard what the DNC has done to Florida and Michigan?

    [ Parent ]
    Don't you have to possess.... (none / 0) (#178)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:04:53 PM EST
    something before it can be stolen?

    We haven't been in possesion of a true democracy in 40 years.

    [ Parent ]

    Not even close to my point (none / 0) (#32)
    by Panhandle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    My point was that Dems lose white women regularly, not that Obama doesn't need them. He does. He needs every decent American that doesn't want another four years of madness and incompetent government.

    And why would any Dem in their right mind be dismissive of "new voters"? Isn't party building a good thing? Should I have not been trying to register voters for the last eight years?


    [ Parent ]

    Doesn't it upset you (5.00 / 8) (#55)
    by Fabian on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:06 PM EST
    that Obama is managing to push away voters faster than you can register new ones?

    It'd tick me off, that's for sure.  

    Plus, there's the GOP and McCain out there with candy, flowers and sweet talk for every voter who feels they've been jilted by the Democrats.  For every voter the GOP picks up, the Dems need to pick up two to hold even and three to pull ahead!

    That's simple math.  So for every not-gonna-take-it-no-more woman who walks away from the Democrats, Obama needs to drum up at least one reliable new voter to hold steady.  If they defect to the GOP, Obama needs at least two new reliable voters to hold steady.

    The numbers are daunting.

    [ Parent ]

    Speaking of "candy and flowers" (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:47 PM EST
    I often lurk in the Republican sites to see what's up.  There is growing support for McCain to choose Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska as his VP. The good ol' boys think she's "hot". A poll at Hot Air has her at 42% in a field of six. I heard McCain has sent his VP search team to Alaska recently.

    [ Parent ]
    Yep, she's got a great "narrative" (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:52:28 PM EST
    and could make a terrific ticket -- in their terms.  She won't bring over firmly pro-choice women, but there are others, Independents, who could be swayed.  Btw, I commented on this buzz about her several days ago here, about her personal history (in Axelrovian terms, her "narrative") -- and the replies here were to forget it, she wouldn't take the job just because of that personal story and parental responsibilities.

    I note that here to suggest that it not be the response again.  It is a subtle form of sexism to dismiss a woman's candidacy simply because of such causes.  If she married well, her children have two fine parents.  And even some of us single moms of children with special needs found them to be the best motivation to work for societal change and to keep conquering personal and professional obstacles -- i.e., our children were not among the obstacles, by any means.  

    [ Parent ]

    I'm a firmly pro-choice woman. (none / 0) (#227)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:14:24 PM EST