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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute 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?


    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?

    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.

    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....


    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?


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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 .

    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.  

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

    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.


    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).

    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.


    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.  

    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...


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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 . . .

    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.

    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?

    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."

    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


    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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?

    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.

    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
    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!

    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


    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.


    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!

    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.

    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.


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

    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.


    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???


    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.


    "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.

    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??

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

    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.

    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.

    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!)

    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!

    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.


    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.      


    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. :-)


    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.


    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.


    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!

    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.


    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."


    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."


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

    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.

    and disgusted by the behavior of many of his followers and advisors.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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. :-)

    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?

    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...

    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.

    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.


    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?


    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.


    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.

    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.  


    I'm a firmly pro-choice woman. (none / 0) (#227)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:14:24 PM EST
    I would like to vote for pro-choice candidates, but it's not the only issue for me. I'd like to know more about her environmental policies before I think about what choosing her might mean for my willingness to actually vote for McCain.  (I know I say I'm going to put lawn signs out for him, but I need to be in a position to negotiate so I have to have something I'm willing to back down on. 8^)) As far as the family issues go, I think that Alaska is heaven on earth, but the DC area would be richer in resources for helping a special needs child. I wonder how her husband would adapt to fishing in Chesapeake Bay?

    Re: Doesn't it upset me (none / 0) (#76)
    by Panhandle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:00:09 PM EST
    What upsets me is the notion that anyone, regardless of gender or race or any of that superficial crap, would put personal pride over protection of America, the Constitution, civil liberties, etc, etc, etc... the important stuff. My opinion has been that ANY Dem would be better than another Republican President, I could care less which one since I find all of them falling short of what I want. But McCain is TERRIBLE.

    And what upsets (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:31 PM EST
    me is that anyone would think I won't vote for Obama for "personal pride" reasons.

    I have very deep reasons why I won't vote for Obama, none of them due to spite.


    Personal pride? (5.00 / 8) (#116)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:21:47 PM EST
    See I resent that you consider our committment to women's rights a matter of personal pride. You are free to disagree with us, of course, but you have absolutely no right to priortize what we hold dear for us.

    If we don't have personal pride . . . (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by nycstray on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:26:50 PM EST
    what do we have?  ;)

    Perhaps that is the problem. (5.00 / 6) (#118)
    by MMW on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:22:15 PM EST
    Those rights and protections you speak off aren't eroded when the entire legislature is republican and upheld when they're all democrats. Democrats cross the isle regularly to screw other dems. Dems don't stand up and filibuster or do THEIR DAHM JOBS when they are there.

    Tell me which of these Obama is going to protect or be strong on.

    What is he going to fight for? How this magical unity will come about?

    ALL we have left is pride and I'd be dahmed if that's going to a bunch of balless, spineless dems who never had force on the repubs but seem to stand up only when the opponent is a woman.

    This is too much like domestic abuse.

    Sorry, but yah, I am PISSSSSSSSED.


    How Terrible? (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Richjo on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:37:21 PM EST
    He is so terrible that Kerry wanted to offer him the VP slot in 2004? I understand that this is how Obama gets votes by demominzing his opposition and getting people to hate them. The Clinton's are corrupt unprincipled racists who hope something terrible happens to me so they can seize power! Now McCain is evil. Let's demonize him. Let's be honest the only people who fall for this crap are those who personally identify with Obama and as a result need to villify anyone who stands in his way. You are sick people and you need to stop. Why not tout Obama's bold new policy iniatives- oh, that's right he doesn't have any. Why not tell us what a great job he will do handling the tough issues we face- oh, whoops, polls show people trust McCain more on those issues. (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/issues2/articles/mccain_trusted_more_than_ob ama_on_economy_iraq_national_security)

    I find it interesting that in 2004 the constant narrative from the press was that John Kerry had to do more than show he wasn't George W Bush to win, yet the prevailing sentiment amongst our friends in the press this time is that Obama, no matter how weak he continually is exposed as being, just has to not be a Republican and he will win. Barack Obama is no where near as qualified as John Kerry was, and John McCain is ten times the man George W Bush is. But it seems just as our friends in the press protected old W no matter what, they are going to be the same for Obama.


    How to link (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:48:36 PM EST
    Sorry you're blowing out the margins... here's what works for me.

    1 Type a word 'clinton' (or any word)

    1. I have the article I am going to link to open on my tabbed browsing. I copy the url address that is at the very top of my screen.

    2. Highlight the word 'clinton'

    3. Click chain link button above the comment box.

         Note: mine is blocked so I must press my shield, select unblock and press the link button again.

    1. Paste in the url. (the letters http are already in the box so make sure you override that)

    2. Press preview to make sure you see you word in blue

    3. Press post

    Ah, panhandle, but I, along with many (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST
    others here do put our personal pride over protection of america, the constitution, civil liberties, etc, etc,etc, the important stuff. That is why many have done their homework and are voting Hillary Clinton, the best qualified candidate to be the next POTUS!

    Dems lose white women regularly? (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by stillife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    What is this, some kind of shedding process?  Last I checked, more women voted Dem than men.  

    That may change in this election, if Obama is the nominee.


    not my point (none / 0) (#100)
    by Panhandle on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:11 PM EST
    I believe you are probably correct that more women vote Democratic than men. My gender tends to be dumb like that... but my point was that Dems lose the white women vote to Republicans. I'm not saying that's good, I'm not saying that's right... I was just making the point that the poll showing reduced approval across the white women demographic might not be all that unusual because the group tends to vote Republican.

    I guess maybe this isn't the place to be optimistic about my party's chances in November.


    I think I understand your point (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by stillife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:20:01 PM EST
    but I don't agree with it.  White women do not tend to vote Republican.  White men do in far larger numbers.

    Obama has a problem with non-AA female voters, but it has nothing to do with a supposed predisposition in that demo to vote Republican.  It has to do with Obama himself and his divisive campaign tactics.


    See my point below (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by tree on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:20:39 PM EST
    White women made the difference for both of Bill Clinton's wins and they made Gore very close. Only Kerry had trouble with white women and it was still much less than his trouble with white men. If Obama has more trouble with white women than Kerry did, then he's in a load of trouble come November.

    So how can the Dem afford to lose any (5.00 / 5) (#135)
    by davnee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    white women?  This isn't some boutique demographic.  This demographic is measured in millions upon millions.  Losing even a small percentage of your ordinary haul in a demographic of this magnitude is fatal.  Do enough African Americans and rich white college students, that have never voted before, exist in this country to compensate for even a 5% under performance in this demographic?

    I believe that women vote issues (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:41:02 PM EST
    each year. In 2004, I believe the issue was safety and women didn't want to risk their children with Dems and voted Repub. This year, however, apparently more women do not like what they see and hear and are moving away from the candidate that is driving that message.

    You're misstating the long-term (5.00 / 5) (#165)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:57:12 PM EST
    trend since at least 1980, as white women generally have voted Dem; just google gender gap, politics, etc.   They just didn't do so for Gore and Kerry, and the Obama campaign still hasn't quite figured out why -- or those Dems don't care, because they think we've reached our expiration date and can be replaced so easily.  We will see.  So will they.

    The big divide is single women vs married (none / 0) (#236)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:48:18 PM EST
    Married women tend to vote Rep and single women tend Dem.  White women are more likely to be married and black women more likely to be single.

    The white female vote usually (5.00 / 6) (#108)
    by tree on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:17:26 PM EST
    favors the Democrat much more than the white male vote does. Even among non-white's there is significant gender gap, although both tend to strongly favor the Democrat.

    Democratic Presidential candidates DON'T lose white women regularly. Bill Clinton won them convincingly and lost white males in both elections. In 1996 he won white women by 5 points and lost white males by 10, for a fifteen point gender gap. In 2000 Gore lost white women by less than a percentage point while losing white males by 24 percent. Kerry did much worse with white women, losing them by 10 points but his percentage with white males was jus as bad as Gore's was.

    If this poll reflects attitudes that will be sustained into November, Obama is toast. Democratic Presidential candidates rely on a positive female gender gap. If Obama can't retain that positive, he's headed for a big defeat in November.


    Democrats lose regularly (5.00 / 5) (#173)
    by esmense on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:00:44 PM EST
    But on the few occasions ('92, '96, 2006) when they win, they do so because a majority plus of women vote Democratic -- making up the difference in the male gender gap. When women split their vote, Dems lose.

    There is absolutely no logical reason to think Obama isn't going to suffer under the same white male gender gap as every other Democratic presidential candidate for most of the last 40 years. That means he will need unusually strong support from women to overcome the consistent Democratic disadvantage with men.

    Think he'll get it?


    you forgot the hispanics, the bitter, clingy (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:56 PM EST
    people, the white working class....shall I go on?

    And now it is reported McCain is more trusted on the economy....obama has so much work to do, he should just quit now.  We know he has an aversion to hard work.


    Neither Gore nor Kerry nor their surrogates (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:58 PM EST
    were trashing a female contender. They were not benefiting from sexism by the media. There is a world of difference.

    right. huge huge difference. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:42:30 PM EST
    they would never encourage what Obama has.

    Can you imagine Gore or Kerry slyly "scratching" their cheek to indicate dismissal of a female competitor?

    I am surprised its not worse.


    That's the critical difference for me (5.00 / 13) (#74)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    It's one thing to hold your nose and vote for a candidate you're not crazy about for the sake of the party, or because the other choice is worse.  Supporting someone who's just not quite all you'd wish for is one thing.

    It is quite another thing to vote for a candidate who has mined the vein of misogyny and contempt for nearly every group (but 2) on his own side.  A vote for that candidate is saying it's ok to hold me and others like me in contempt; it's ok for the MSM to spew hateful, sexist comments day after day; it's ok to condescend to working class voters; it's ok to flip off whole segments of the population.

    Even if white women, Hispanics, the working class and every other Under-the-Bus group were not critical to a Democratic win in November, it is still not ok to dismiss them, deride them and call them racist or low information.

    I may not be able to stop it, but I do not have to support it.  And I won't.


    Good vote (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jondee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:03:05 PM EST
    for Four More Wars. At least it'll only be swarthy, backward people on the otherside of the world that'll be derided, dismissed (permanantly),and have their sense of specialness and entitlement devalued.

    Btw, Mr. McCain appreciates all your efforts and your tax break'll be forthcoming. Look out Mall.


    "swarthy people" (5.00 / 10) (#89)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    So, what did Obama do to stop the killing of swarthy people.  Nothing.  He fell in line and will fall in line.  Cause, maybe by now you don't get it, America is not getting out of Iraq, no matter what you of the creative class think.  McCain is right.  America wants to control the oil reserves.  It's that simple.  If you think Obama will change how America treats swarthy people you are mistaken.  The only difference is that you will feel better that it's not a dumb Texan doing it and it's some cool, hip black guy doing it.  

    PS (5.00 / 5) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:25 PM EST
    speaking of someone of half Arab family background, "swarthy" was such a colonial artifact.  You even have no clue how describing Arabs as simply "swarthy" is offensive.  

    I'm half Lebonese.... (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    and I took no offense...that's jondee's sarcastic style, which I never fail to get a kick out of.

    I agree Obama can't or won't end our agrresive empire building...but neither will Clinton or McCain.  Sadly there is no peace candidate still alive under the Democrat or Republican brand label.  No liberty candidate either.


    Swarthy (5.00 / 3) (#224)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:09:50 PM EST
    was used by the Brits to talk of their Colonial subjects, I grew up in Egypt, so I remember the use of the word and it's implication.   Swarthy had numerous implications.  By the way, in the English Sporting Club the sign used to say, within my father's lifetime, "no dogs or Arabs".  

    And I think the (5.00 / 4) (#96)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:13:15 PM EST
    way he treats "low information Archie Bunkers" at home is a great indicator of his attitude about "swarthy people" in general.

    I'm not voting for McCain (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    I didn't say I was.  I'm not voting for McCain because I do not support him either.

    Your comment is nearly incomprehensible.  If the DNC and Obama's supporters choose to go with the candidate less likely to win, then any damage McCain does to (your words) 'swarthy, backward' people is on them, not me.  It's not the lack of my vote for Obama what will do it, it is your/their lack of vote for the stronger, more electible candidate.


    I'm quaking in my boots. (5.00 / 6) (#103)
    by davnee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:15:51 PM EST
    Can you offer me a single reason that is not "McCain would be worse" for why I should vote for Obama?  Go ahead.  Make an affirmative case for why Obama should be president. No negative reasons.  Only positives based on what he plans to do or what he brings to the table.  And you can't say visit his website.

    Who votes on positives? (none / 0) (#185)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:11:40 PM EST
    Most people I know vote against the other clown, they don't for anybody.

    I got tired of that, so I strictly vote for somebody, which leaves me exclusively voting 3rd party/independent.


    Excuse me, but... (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by miriam on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:25:19 PM EST
    You don't know what you're talking about.  Please read some history.  More wars have been started by stupid mistakes and blunders than any other way. Obama's unforgivable naivety (unforgivable in a person who claims to be competent and experienced enough to be president) will undoubtedly cause more mistakes and blunders than you can count.  Obama can't even keep his family history straight; how can you expect him to keep the world's history straight when he is forced to make a decision.  He is far more likely to ignorantly lead us into war than McCain.

    You do know that your candidate (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:02:06 PM EST
    is descended from those "swarthy" people on his father's side, as an Arab African?  And if you are going to claim irony, say so, use quote marks, etc.  But generally, it is wise to not say anything that your candidate wouldn't say.  And he wouldn't say that.

    What does that mean? (none / 0) (#188)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:15:02 PM EST
    But generally, it is wise to not say anything that your candidate wouldn't say.

    That's scary...are we all Stepford Wives or free American individuals with free American minds?

    I think we all need a fat dose of some Thoreau-style individualism around here....I always and only speak for me, doesn't everybody?


    Kdog, I can count on you (none / 0) (#194)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    to come back with the very reasonable and correct argument for thinking people -- in part because you are not here to promulgate either or any candidate.  My message was for the Obamans who are here to push their candidate.  Their tactics are not persuasive in meeting their purpose, and they just bore us.

    But your purposes are far different, so do please keep reminding us all to say what needs to be said for the sake of the people, not the One -- or the Other. :-)


    I'll try Cream.... (none / 0) (#223)
    by kdog on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    Thanks for clarifying.  I was hoping you didn't mean what I thought you meant.  We might not see eye to eye on things, but I certainly didn't have you pegged as a group-thinker.

    Rock on sister...and thanks for not taking offense at the Stepford Wives analogy, because none was intended.  Another of my figure of speeches that I like the freedom to use:)


    Cool. And the Stepford Wives analogy (none / 0) (#247)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:17:11 PM EST
    actually is perfect, one I also use for fem lemmings.:-)  That is a scary book/flick.

    Yeah I get it (none / 0) (#242)
    by jondee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:04:55 PM EST
    hence all the "sexist", "misogynist" charges leveled at Obama for "trash talking" that came from the mouths of his ga-ga disciples, anonymous bloggers, and attention seeking pundits.

    Btw, since when are "white women" and "white working class" (Thar she blows Captain Ahab!), NOT "colonial artifacts", albeit institutionalized.

    And, at 1/3 Italian and 1/3 Serbian, I'll challenge anyone here to a swarthy-off. I get moontans for chrissake.


    He can't overcome (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by angie on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:16 PM EST
    He has work to do to get: women, latinos, jews, the working class and now, after Fr. Pfleger "white people" -- yep, some Obama supporter on Greta last night said the only effect of Fr. Pfleger would be in Obama's pick for VP because he needs someone who will help him get the "white people" (his words) because they "are an important constituent." HA! At least it is nice to know that Obama might just think the majority of the population are "important" because he hasn't shown any indication that the women, latinos, jews or working class are. Further, how many VPs do you think Obama can have? IMO, it is smarter to nominate someone who is already doing well with the women, latinos, jews, working class and "white people."

    And, Cris Cizzla (sp) was on Fox (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:40:26 PM EST
    today regarding the Fr's comments saying that Obama is trying to run a campaign that is neither black nor white!!! Please!!!!

    nope (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:16:09 PM EST
    Obama is worse than Kerry. I doubt he will do better than Kerry simply because Kerry didn't spend 20 years listening to sexist crap in a pulpit.

    Obama cannot match Kerry's numbers (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST
    for the simple reason that while Kerry was uninspiring, he was not insulting, belittling or demeaning to women. Obama is all three. We aren't going to vote for someone who thinks of us that way and has no qualms about saying so, albeit in a veiled way that is allegedly humorous. It's not funny, and no matter how much "work" he does, he won't be able to get the women's votes back. Many of us will write in Hillary, some will vote for McCain, and some will not vote at all for President. Obama dissed the wrong bunch of people when he dissed the women of America. And we won't "come back" to such a flawed and obviously chauvinist candidate. If Obama wanted our votes, he should have shown us some respect. He didn't. His mistake. His loss. And because of that he will lose the GE. His fault, his loss, his mistake.

    Certainly this comes as no surprise (5.00 / 11) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:15:15 PM EST
    The disrespect shown to Senator Clinton by the Obama-favoring media has angered women in unprecedented ways.
    If he is the nominee, there will need to be a major outreach to mend fences although it may be too late for many women.

    You mean (5.00 / 9) (#43)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:20 PM EST
    the "major outreach" will occur after he has fully reaped the benefits of sexism and ageism. Wow. That will really win us over. It's like the guy who robbed the bank repenting of his sin -- but keeping the money.



    Or.... (5.00 / 0) (#130)
    by miriam on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:29:31 PM EST
    killing his parents (women) and then pleading that he be treated leniently because he's an orphan.

    He's proven he feels no obligation whatsoever (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    to reach for anyone.

    His "apology" for Father Pfleger's comments were boilerplate rhetoric.

    Had he said, "I apologize personally to Senator Clinton for the inaccurate and vulgar attack directed at her from my good friend, Father P."

    He didn't detach himself from this one any better than he detached himself from Wright. Both those men remain in Obama's good graces, and we all know it.

    Fox had a young black woman, democrat strategist, mid-morning who actually defended the Father's nasty comments (Keli something), and a man (Peter something) let her have it for that.


    If It Were Just The Media I Could Move (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    beyond that and once again hold my nose. IMO Obama, his campaign and his political supporters and the Democratic Party  have participated in this behavior. The Democratic Party did not come out and declare that this was unacceptable behavior. in fact, more than one Obama supporting pol participated in the same type of behavior as the media. After McCain attacked the Dems behavior, there was a small, brief murmur of protest from the party before many of its members turned their attention to another way to discredit Hillary.

    Why should any woman remain loyal to a party that allows or encourages this type of behavior to flourish unimpeded?    


    Astroturfing Axelrod (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by waldenpond on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:00:01 PM EST
    Did you catch the tread yesterday on Axelrod (fktchkr), it linked to an article on him and the tactics his astroturfing firm use...

    [The gutter politics continued with Father Michael Pfleger who, based on an encounter with a single person attending the meeting, began echoing the canned message refrain that museum opponents were acting out of racist motives. Astroturf, in abundance.]

    And we are supposed to believe all of these tactics by Obama and Axelrod weren't preplanned and intentional.  Give me a friggin' break.


    To me, the electoral (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by frankly0 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:21:41 PM EST
    problems that face Obama are truly formidable and remarkable.

    His most basic problem of course is his inability to connect with Reagan Democrats -- the downfall of all Democratic nominees who have lost.

    But, for Obama, it's actually far worse. He's also managed to turn off women because of the sexism either encouraged or merely tolerated by his campaign. And he's turned off many Democrats who supported his opponent, and have been abused by his supporters for having done so. Add those numbers to the Reagan Democrats, and you have what looks to be unprecedented hostility to him as a candidate.

    How do you possibly turn that into a winning coalition? Can the Democratic brand be so strong this year that he can still emerge victorious?

    I realize that people imagine that things will be just fine when Obama becomes the nominee, but I don't see how that works. The simple fact is that the two sides in this process have been disliking each other for at least six months, often more. I don't see how all that goes away in just a few months.

    Really, the divisions we've been seeing are themselves unprecedented in recent times -- at least back until 1972. And 1972 didn't exactly work out great.

    GROSS MISCALCULATION (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:25:08 PM EST
    The media in Obama's tank used sexism and gross misogyny to destroy Clinton, instead they motivated women to become an anti-Obama tsunami which is rolling out in every corner of the country.

    Women United is now the antidote of the Unity Ticket.  The Unity Pony is in intensive care in a deep coma and only a Clinton/Obama might resuscitate   it back to some sort of a recovery before a November disastrous election.

    And it's all because (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:30:06 PM EST
    they never looked past beating the Clintons.  They figured that once they survived the primary that McCain would be easy to beat.

    Not so fast.  Isn't it amazing that in a year that should have been a shoe-in for Democrats, that the Republicans nominate the only person who could win, and the Democrats nominate the person who could lose?


    Sorry (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    I won't vote HRC as a handmaiden buffing the shoes of BHO.

    Nether am I (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by feet on earth on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:22:50 PM EST
    As I said, the only possible way out of this mess is Hillary on the top of the ticket.

    Anything else is a sure loss for the new UnDemocratic party in November.


    Just a personal anecdote (5.00 / 8) (#31)
    by DaytonDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:29:43 PM EST
    My family's Democratic roots go back to FDR. My mother was inconsolable after RFK's death. We vote Democratic period. My father has passed and there are there are five of us left, my mother, two sisters and two brothers of which I am one. My brother is a Obama guy. I am a Clinton supporter, but all of the women have sworn not to vote for Obama. One of my sisters will actually vote for McCain. I have argued about the stakes. They are upset beyond repair. I don't know if this is a typical attitude among long time Dems, but it is a schism I have never seen before. I believe we are doomed in November.

    That's me too (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:32:43 PM EST
    I wasn't born yet when FDR was president, but I realized this year that I'm a HARD CORE FDR Democrat.

    Oh and just as a closing note (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by DaytonDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:57 PM EST
    the SCOTUS argument is a non starter. The idea that we need to vote for a Democrat to protect us for other Democrats, the weak kneed Senate Democrats, makes me wonder why I am a Dem in the first place.

    My sentiments exactly (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by stillife on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:01:36 PM EST
    I've been a hard-core Dem for more years than I care to remember, but what have the Dems done for me lately?  Sweet f*ck-all.  I have no faith that Obama as President would improve the situation.  He shows all the signs of being another do-nothing, go-along to get-along Dem (and I'm being charitable, calling him a Dem, b/c I don't believe he adheres to old school Dem principles).  

    Don't Worry (5.00 / 10) (#35)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:32:14 PM EST
    The women will be good girls and fall in line.  We always do, right?  Why should Obama care?  Sure, no Democrat has ever been elected to any office in recent history without strong support from women, but Obama's building a new coalition.  One where the majority of voters aren't nearly as important as they used to be.

    I'm going to an Emily's List conference in a couple of weeks in D.C.  It will be interesting to hear what their donors are saying about Obama.  The organization will back him if he's the nominee, but I'm talking about its active members.

    The ironic part... (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by citizen53 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:35:34 PM EST
    is that so many of the Obama supporters and media don't even realize how sexist they have been, yet the supporters especially will scream racism at the drop of a hat.

    The recent church episode, knowing it is Obama's church, and seeing the racist, sexist hate being gleefully applauded, will cause even further damage in the electorate.

    I'm old enough to remember when white (5.00 / 8) (#53)
    by lorelynn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    people complained about the likes of MLK "stirring up" the blacks. In their world view, blacks were plenty happy with their lot in life until MLK came along and talked into being unhappy.

    So, I find it bizarre in the extreme that one of the talking points out of Obama circles is that Clinton is "stirring up" the women voters against Obama.

    Whoever said that irony is dead? Boy, oh boy, were they wrong. I think their gravestone should read, "Irony wasn't dead but now so and so is".

    Gosh, you would think that with the (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Anne on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:44:17 PM EST
    media flogging the cr@p out of the Obama-is-the-nominee message, the support for Obama ought to be consolidating and increasing, not crumbling, right?  Wonder how Obama's feeling about his declaration that he knew he could get Clinton's supporters?  With vision and foresight like that, he really ought to be sitting in a pundit's chair, don't you think?  Or at least letting me in on the winning Mega Millions numbers for tonight.

    The bloom is off the rose, the 4-hour Vi*gr* window has closed, and the more sense people have of the reality of Obama, the less of a substantive candidate he appears to be.

    Not that it will matter to the "leaders" of the Democratic Party...

    Imagine how things would be (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:47:27 PM EST
    if the press wasn't handing him a pillow.

    Wow..wow..and wow again (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    Somerby's series on the MSM and the RFK issue is absolutely some of the most brilliant writing I have ever encountered in this medium.  His critical analysis of each point and how the Scribes and Pundits have failed sums up what I think the danger that we are in as a society.  Our democracy depends on journalists and media, and once again, like the Iraq war and the Gore bashing of 2000, they have done it all over again, and this time, the left has joined in putting the knife into the last bit of the carcass of our democracy.  

    Unbelievable (5.00 / 5) (#69)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:50:21 PM EST
    Six months ago I would have bet that Elmer Fudd could have beaten any Republican cabdidate. Now I have this terrible pit in my stomach that the Dem's are going to blow it again.There was no way the Dem should have lost in 2000. And in 2004, Bush and Iraq was already sliding and yet he won. I'm from Chicago and the Dem remind me of the Cubs. If there's a way to lose, they'll find it.

    and think, this is before the new video (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by DandyTIger on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:02:30 PM EST
    of Pfleger that just came to light. I wonder how that will play out. I think Obama's poll numbers will take another big hit.

    I've noticed that Obama News Network (NBC) doesn't seem to be playing that video, nor is CNN. Perhaps we should write them and ask them if the reason they're not playing it is because it's a white man saying it. That is, because they only will show embarrassing video's when it's black people being crazy. You never know.

    CNN (5.00 / 4) (#140)
    by miriam on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:37:45 PM EST
    played a clip of it last night, but only the part that demeaned Hillary.  Of course.  Absent was the previous part that demonized all white people.

    The head to head matches (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    between Clinton and Obama are just the mirroring of the inevitability campaign by the media.

    If Obama is your nominee, the Clinton/Obama number is irrelevant.

    This Obama experience has made me so angry (5.00 / 7) (#97)
    by carmel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:13:19 PM EST
    that I don't think I really want to be part of the democratic party anymore. I guess that's okay because Donna Brazile said it live on CNN that the democrats don't need the women anymore. That was probably one of my worst moments during this campaign, watching angry, "undeclared" Donna, talk about the "New Democratic Party". The New Democratic Party looks really ugly to me.

    Obama worked to ensure women (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by Prabhata on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:16:11 PM EST
    disliked him.  He used subtle sexist remarks, e.g. kitchen sink attack.  I wouldn't vote for him.

    Ordinarily I'm all over you guys (5.00 / 10) (#107)
    by Jim J on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:17:05 PM EST
    for largely cut-and-pasting the same old Obama bashing lines in thread after thread. (I agree with them, but I've just become bored by them.)

    But this Pfleger thing is just unreal. It's clear now that, primary process aside, Obama is not qualified to be president from either party.

    It's not about Hillary anymore. It's about the health of the country.

    Obama is disastrous, not because he could lead the party to ruin (so what? What have they done for us lately?), but because of what his election would mean for all 300 million Americans.

    I hope pfleger is the straw that (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by davnee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:41:10 PM EST
    broke the camel's back for you and not the whole camel!  I mean I found that tape horrifying and repulsive on multiple levels, but it only served to seal my pre-existing view of Obama that he is either too much of a racist or too much of a craven coward to be president.  It provided incontrovertible proof, to me, that Wright was not an anomaly in Obama's life but a part of his way of life.

    Pfleger? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Chimster on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:28:01 PM EST
    Why would that nobody finally change your mind about Obama?

    I realized (none / 0) (#197)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    this a while back.

    Kicking Her While She's Down (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Chimster on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM EST
    I can't seem to go anywhere without someone thrashing Hillary. It's become a favorite past time. Here's a Newsweak story just out which complains about her whining and why this womens issue is a problem for Democracy.Something's gotta change within our party before I will vote for a Democrat.

    I think I'll send my doctor bill to the DNC for causing me an ulcer.

    Eleanor Clift (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:35:06 PM EST
    has been in the tank for Obama for quite some time.

    what:? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by RalphB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:56:22 PM EST
    womens issue is a problem for Democracy

    That may be the stupidest, most ridiculous thing in this whole lousy campaign.  It may be a problem for the candidate who has turned off women voters, but for democracy.  Sheesh.


    My stomach is still churning from watching the (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by carmel on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:26:04 PM EST
    Father Pfleger video. The way he talked about Hillary really made me sick. I am wondering how I will survive an entire GE time period with more of these videos sure to be on the horizon. I had so much hope for Obama, and it saddens me so much that Obama is a man surrounded by hate - not hope, not unity - but hate-mongering that wants change in a really scary, hateful way. Hillary offers Hope, and good change for the country.

    Perhaps (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    when he gets blown out in Nov. he'll finally learn a little humility.

    And far from hating you (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:58:00 PM EST
    I will refuse to vote this year FOR you. One never tolerates misogyny, and one never rewards hate speech. (And many women have participated fully in the misogyny -- just as many AAs participated in their own oppression.)

    Someday I think you will understand. You too will be a woman in her 40s or 50s or 60s.

    Don't vote for me (none / 0) (#175)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    I'm not running.

    And way to be condescending.  One day I will be old, then all of a sudden the sky will fall and wisdom will be imparted on me.  Because right now I am completley incapable of thinking for myself, and apparently, so is my 55 year old mother.


    No, that's not what I said (none / 0) (#213)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    You will know what it is to be marginalized and excluded.  You will endure insults because of your looks and your age (even if you look "good for your age").  You will be condescended to even worse than I am condescending to you (apologies for that!) It will have a different feel to it.

    Glad your mother hasn't experienced this -- but those of us who have had to look for professional work in our fifties, those who have raised children without help, and those of us facing old age alone have a very different take on things.


    Believe me (none / 0) (#218)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:54:04 PM EST
    I know what ALL of that is like.  And it happened because of my race, gender, age, you name it.  Even at the tender age of 23.  I don't think those are lessons that are any easier to deal with when you are young.

    I certainly don't think electing McCain will make it better.


    Beyond Orwellian (4.86 / 15) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:23:05 PM EST
    One mistake we always make is thinking that Orwell's criticism of the media, propaganda etc, only referred to the "right" wing politics.  In truth, Orwell, was just as scared of the left as he was of the right.  I will have to say, that women are not buying it.  

    The arguments that I found distasteful go something like this:

    1.  The young will get "desponded" and they will not participate.  We should give it to them cause they need to be engaged.
    2.  AAs will think it was stolen, and will not vote for her or participate.
    3.  Women, oh, well, they are so afraid of what will happen to their reproductive rights, they will vote for any Democrat.  

    These were the electability arguments for Obama.  This is how women were trivialized.  This is how disgusting this election was.  I was reduced to the sum parts of my reproductive organs.  

    Procreation (4.60 / 10) (#48)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:41:51 PM EST
    Older women, the women Obama has gone out of his way to offend, aren't worried about reproduction any more.

    The younger women should have thought of that when they were trashing the legacy of their mothers.


    women (none / 0) (#91)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:11:13 PM EST
    Voting for someone else is not trashing the legacy of their mothers.  There is way too much hate here for young women.  We have different ideals and issues, but we are not trashing our moms.  I am sorry if you have been offended by Obama, but I have been offended by Obama, Clinton, and most of all McCain.  However, I vote for the person I think will do the most for me and this country.  I just happen to think it will be Obama.  I don't think that voting for him in any way shape or form trashes the legacy of my mother, or grandmother, or the many women that came before me.  Voting for McCain might trash that legacy, the man who said women don't need equal pay they need more "training".  Well thanks for my part, but last I checked that's why I got my degree, now I'll take the equal pay.

    Voting (5.00 / 8) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:19:38 PM EST
    for him would be rewarding his trash talking about women. It would also be rewarding his inability to take a stand or stand up and say what is right and what is wrong.

    Look (none / 0) (#137)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    As far as I can see, he hasn't done "trash talking" of women.  He said things about Hillary that he shouldn't have said.  He called a reporter sweetie.  That's not exactly talking trash on women.  Is he perfect?  No, and neither is Hillary.  Do I think he's sexist?  Absolutely not.

    I am more offended by votes for legislation that restrict my rights and the rights of others than by anything any of these candidates say.


    He's a (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:47:48 PM EST
    weasel. He goes to an anti woman church and even though the trash that has come out of that church has been exposed numerous times he continues to stay. There's no way to no what he'll do in office because he caves all the time. He's too afraid of offending anyone to take a stand on anything. Voting present over a hundred times doesn't sound too good to me either.

    It's all a moot point anyway. Obama doesn't want our votes.


    You're entitled to your opinion (none / 0) (#158)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:52:03 PM EST
    And I am entitled to mine.  I disagree with you.  That doesn't mean I am trashing my mother's legacy.  Especially since she agrees with me and voted for Obama.  I am not trying to convert anyone, I am saying, stop attacking people for their choices (I realize you didn't say that originally, it was the post I replied to the first time).

    I think (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    the point is that people made those choices and will have to live with the consequences of those choices. If the supreme court is so important then you should be concerned about having a candidate who can win a general election is pretty much my point.

    What SPECIFIC (none / 0) (#238)
    by jondee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:54:44 PM EST
    "trash talking about women" are you refering to?

    Not what was said by fawning, dingbat bloggers, and sound-bite-surfing attention junkies like Chris Matthews, but, specifically by Obama himself?


    Obama isn't trash talking women (none / 0) (#243)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:10:16 PM EST
    I gotta go with the young woman on this one.  Even if I disliked him, I wouldn't assume he's wiping dogsh*t off his shoe.  No candidate would be stupid enough to imply that women are dogsh*t.  Really.  

    I'm a feminist in my 50s and I can see Obama makes mistakes that come from trying to appear inclusive, cool, you name it.  But I think that's a reflection of our culture more than his innate personality.  He should make sure the hip hop he uses is from a group that has absolutely no anti-women material (good luck with that one...), he should be careful of the anti-gay people he brings into the fold (plenty of religious anti-gay marriage people have NOT gone ballistic on gays), he should clean up his habits (sweetie), he should make sure his reasonable arguments are better stated (clinging to guns and religion).  

    But these are all things that go to being less sexist and more mindful, which we all have to work on, me included and I love women.  Doesn't mean the cultural pervasiveness of sexism isn't ingrained in me as well.  

    I would hope many people on this blog  make the effort to help our arguably sexist candidate clean up his act.  I intend to.  I still support him over Hillary, especially since the Yes We Can movement is more likely to effect the change I want in my government and the world.  Not just Obama, but the movement behind him.  It's really more about us than it is about him.


    Using the "reasonable woman standard" (5.00 / 2) (#251)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:23:44 PM EST
    for assessing creation of a hostile environment in this campaign, I very reasonably call you wrong.  It also is established with a pattern, and I'm not assessing him on only one incident, by any means.  

    As you say, he needs to learn -- and fast -- how to at least act "less sexist."  Which, of course, means that you actually do agree with us other women of a certain age that he has been sexist.  


    Clearly, terms that minimize women are sexist (none / 0) (#256)
    by Newt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 05:04:56 PM EST
    I'm just not seeing a pattern of sexism that indicates a severe character fault.  Sexism pervades our culture.  My own sexism sneaks up on me sometimes, and I'm a solid feminist.  How could we not be, given the culture we've been brought up in and the sexism all around us.  Yes, I spend a great deal of time catching and correcting it.  Sexism is all over the blogs, and I try to contradict it when I can. But I don't think calling someone sweetie is more than just a mistake of habit from a parent of two girls.  I call adult men sweetie sometimes, especially my gay male friends.  So it could be argued that I'm using that word because of the effeminate stereotype for gay men.  I'd argue it's a term of endearment that I should be careful about if and when my male friends point out that it offends them.  

    The wiping the shoe antics was unnecessary entertainment for the crowd, and I'd argue he shouldn't do it because it can be construed as disrespectful.  I'm much more concerned about Bill Clinton's antics in the Oval Office that probably cost us the presidency and control of Congress ever since then.  That's the kind of anti-woman and anti-Hillary crap that I'd like to never see happen again.


    Was your mother one of the women (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:24:59 PM EST
    who actively worked for the things young women are enjoying today?  I mean no disrespect, but not all women of your mom's generation were in involved in the battle for women's rights.  Some worked hard for them, unfortunately some women worked equally as hard against, and some watched from the sidelines.  I would find it hard to believe that someone who has the scars to show for the last wave of feminism wouldn't see how sexist Obama is.  It oozes out his pores. Even in his treatment of Michelle. Forgive those of us who have the scars if we think that your generation needs to step up and take some responsibility to protect what has been given to you and to push the agenda forward. The only one of three candidates to be a sure bet on this one is Hillary.

    Yes she was (none / 0) (#206)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    In fact fighting for those rights, actively.

    Also, she has spent her whole life working to get health care to people who can't afford it.


    So you want a president (none / 0) (#239)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:56:44 PM EST
    who won't let his wife take a job until he has approved her boss?? By interviewing him?? Or one who dismisses a woman of Senator Clinton's accomplishments as sh*t on his shoe?? Or says that his wife's main goal in the White House will be to raise his children?? Mind you, his wife is a woman with two degrees from excellent schools. Go ask him for a job and see what happens. Good luck.

    Our fellow commentor p lukasiak has (4.83 / 6) (#52)
    by Joan in VA on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    written a fantastic post at Corrente re: Obama is losing voters in just about every category in the last three months' primaries as opposed to what he got before then. He has only gained in the under 15K income group, as I recall. I recommend that everyone read it. "Buyer's Remorse"

    I love that he is losing independents, (4.57 / 7) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:36:18 PM EST
    because strength amongst independents was one of the main things Dailykos people screamed at me as the reason to nominate him. It was, or course, inevitable that he would lose independent support. Independents tend to be less ideological then partisan Democrats or Republicans. They choose based upon certain issues they really care about AND the qualifications of the candidate. Given Obama's lack of that last quality, it's not a surprise that they would start to favor McCain.

    He's Created Independents (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by BDB on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    Perhaps that's who he is losing, all the people he's driven out of the party.

    another argument for a unity ticket? (none / 0) (#2)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:58:44 AM EST

    Yes, as long as she's on top (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Valhalla on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:05:53 PM EST
    The Dean gang and Obama are never going to offer her the VP spot.  Only way a Unity ticket is happening is if she's in a position to give him the #2 spot.

    Given how much of Dems' support margin in past races has come from white women, they should be worried.  Yes, I know they think we'll all come meekly back to the fold after they push her out of the race, but why would you bet the whole enchilada on a Hope like that?

    Take it to the convention, it's the only Hope left.


    LOL (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by bjorn on Fri May 30, 2008 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    tell Dean (none / 0) (#232)
    by dotcommodity on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:32:51 PM EST
    BTD might agree with you. (none / 0) (#4)
    by zfran on Fri May 30, 2008 at 11:59:36 AM EST
    Leadership (none / 0) (#99)
    by mmc9431 on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:14:52 PM EST
    It's time Obama began showing the leadership and unity image he wants to portray. He needs to get his surrogates and supporters to stick to issues and facts rather than just shouting the loudest. A few more episodes like the last Reverend and he'll be lucky if he can get 30% in Nov. You can't write off whites, womwn, blue collar, Mi, Fl, and expect to win. Polls have shown that McCain neutralizes his western state strategy. He needs everyone he can get.

    The only reason Obama's still in this race (5.00 / 4) (#109)
    by Jim J on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    is because of the media burying things like Pfleger, and the Wright thing before that.

    When the Obama camp says "We're moving past this," the media dutifully repeats "We're moving past this."

    The media is taking talking points directly from Obama's campaign in a way that's far more transparent and, yes, audacious, than they did with Bush. Which is saying quite a lot.


    Yeah (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:28:44 PM EST
    but the GOP isn't going to play that game. They'll be blasting this stuff all over the channels in the fall.

    Really? (none / 0) (#168)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 01:58:31 PM EST
    And what did Clinton do?  I could respect her a lot more if she had gone and made a speech on gender or done something to combat it herself.  Instead, she waits till it's all over and done with and starts complaining about it months later, while she could've tackled it head on when it might've made a difference.

    Also, how do you know what I did and didn't do with regards to what was being said in the media?

    But that's fine, you think he flipped her the bird despite the fact that that has been debunked a number of times by all rational people since there were TWO FINGERS up while he was scratching his nose.

    Okay, now you've gone too far. (5.00 / 5) (#187)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:13:17 PM EST
    It can be understandable that you have avoided cognitive dissonance by not recognizing what your candidate, not just his campaign, personally has done to demean Clinton; the "hip hop," "dust on my shoulder and shoe" video -- even those parts, sans the arguable "finger" -- ought to be enough to open any eyes.  When your candidate treats one of the most accomplished women of our time as no more than dogs**t on his shoe, he does it to me, too.

    And he never, never can take that back with me.

    But your comments about Clinton not doing something about gender just reveal your active resistance to becoming informed.  You still can vote for your candidate while learning about her 35 years' work for women and families.  You still can vote for your candidate while looking up her famous speech at Beijing, voted one of the 100 most famous speeches by any American and known by women and men worldwide.  You still can vote for your candidate after being fully informed about both candidates -- and you could become more fully cognizant of the careers and political aspirations of more than 30 women who have run for the presidency in this country before you claim that all Clinton had to do was confront the gender issues to make them go away in our culture.  

    She has done something, she has worked for you and your mother, all of her adult life.  Listen and learn for the day when she is not there anymore, so you will be ready to accomplish even an nth of what Clinton has done.  Because your candidate could have signed on to Clinton's efforts to save Roe v. Wade, emergency birth control, and much more for you even only in recent years since he joined the Senate.  But he didn't.  So you better be ready to do so for yourself.


    Merci beaucoup, Cream City! (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by samanthasmom on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:30:51 PM EST
    35 years (none / 0) (#204)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:27:33 PM EST
    I wasn't referring to her long record.  I was referring to the the last year, you know, the one during the campaign.  You are taking my post out of context.  The person was complaining about Obama sitting back during THIS CAMPAIGN, and not saying anything.  Finally, I am well aware of her record, I never claimed she didn't fight for women's rights over her career.  So no, I don't go to far.

    Also, he wasn't referring to Clinton as dogsh*t.  But sure, you can read into that all you want.


    No? (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by Nadai on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:42:14 PM EST
    Then what was it exactly he was scraping off his shoe?

    It was a metaphor (none / 0) (#215)
    by CST on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:47:26 PM EST
    You know, the sh*t in the campaign, Reverend Wright, all of the soundbite politics, etc...

    Cognitive dissonance again (none / 0) (#249)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:19:44 PM EST
    but it can be so comforting, bless your heart.

    You've demonstrated my point. (5.00 / 4) (#216)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:50:17 PM EST
    The crowd cheered and applauded his gesture.

    See exactly what I mean?  What did Clinton "do"?  When she finally did something she was "complaining", in your own words.  Others have said she was "playing the victim," "whining," etc.

    You cannot defend yourself on these things. You can only take it on the chin and move on. Any resistance from the object of it feeds into it.

    Been there, done that.

    And no, I don't know what you've done. That's why I asked.

    Good luck to you, CST.


    Good Dems (none / 0) (#214)
    by PlayInPeoria on Fri May 30, 2008 at 02:46:49 PM EST
    Women Dem would REALLY have to be a good Dem to vote for Sen Obama.

    MI Dem would REALLY have to be a good Dem to vote for Sen Obama.

    FL Dem would REALLY have to be a good Dem to vote for Sen Obama.

    Working class Dem would REALLY have to be a good Dem to vote for Sen Obama.

    I'm a good Dem... but how many do we have?

    The Dem party is going to have to do something to get this guy elected.

    I would change that (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by tree on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:02:21 PM EST
    to "LOYAL Dems".  Sometimes good Dems have to decide between principles and loyalty. Choosing principles over party loyalty doesn't necessarily make you a bad Democrat.

    Wow. (none / 0) (#225)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    I would call those 'high negatives'.  

    ABC News (none / 0) (#226)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:12:09 PM EST
    Good news! Nearly a five-minute spot on sexism in the campaign at abc.com.  

    Not great segment -- but better than nuthin'.

    Perplexed (none / 0) (#231)
    by Stellaaa on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:24:39 PM EST
    What is a "post feminist"?  Is it someone who just came after feminism, or someone who does not need feminism?  

    I will now make a generalization, so be patient.  There is a type of young woman, who often times is very accomplished, who makes it a point to distance herself from any women who bring  up feminism or sexism.  It's almost militant.  I am of two minds for this, one is to say:  I do not and did not feminists to be who I am.  or a wanting to be part of the "boy's club" by rejecting feminism and the existence of sexism.  

    In some ways, I think in the AA community many of the younger accomplished people, put down the older ones for being stuck in the Civil Rights movement.  I read some posts in various places and some  articles.  

    We are not post feminist or post racial.  We have not solved either issue and the more we trivialize them and the more we deny them, the more mistakes we make.  

    Saying to Obama that he won South Carolina like Jessie Jackson won is not racist.  I do not think anyone from the Democratic Party has gone out of their way to say racist things.  On the other hand the education gap and the large percentage of  AAs in prison, that is racist.  

    Telling a woman that she pimps her daughter and should be taken in a room and beaten up to make her see sense, is sexist.  Women getting paid less and suffering in poverty after divorces is sexist.  

    That's almost 30 percent of the electorate and (none / 0) (#237)
    by Salt on Fri May 30, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    that's not even adding in the coat tails Dem women can leverage, but no surprise its dislike actually.  But I have news for the pollsters the men that were leaning towards Hillary are now gone and have moved back to McCain.

    And, just in case (none / 0) (#246)
    by jondee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    anyones just waiting to be offended, excluded, devalued, silenced and objectified again, when they say "slides" they're not saying that the brazen, arrogant, terrified of commitment and only interested in one thing Obama,litterally creeps up and insinuates himself between unsuspecting white women. Allay your fears.

    You are insulting our intelligence (5.00 / 4) (#252)
    by Cream City on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:26:15 PM EST
    by revealing how little you have.  Whatacreep.

    Thanks for devaluing me (none / 0) (#255)
    by jondee on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:33:01 PM EST
    and disempowering me, yet again.

    I just hope you're happy.


    Now if only Obama would (none / 0) (#248)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:19:05 PM EST
    take himself hostage. "Vote for me or I'll blow his head off!!"

    96% Pro Environment is "Actively Wrong?" (none / 0) (#254)
    by Spike on Fri May 30, 2008 at 04:29:50 PM EST
    I fought against nukes and synfuels on the Hill during the Reagan administration. I agree that Obama originally took a bad position on coal-to-liquids. I called a friend in his Senate office and told her that I was really disappointed in his position. She put Sen. Obama on the phone and we had a spirited debate on the topic for about five minutes. At the end he promised me he would look at the issue more closely. He changed his position a few months later. I was really impressed that he would take the time to talk to me and really listen.

    I've been doing energy/environment policy in DC for 30 years -- including the Clinton White House. Clinton and Obama would both be vastly superior to McCain on environmental issues. To claim otherwise is simply not true.

    Obama's falling support (none / 0) (#257)
    by demwit on Sat May 31, 2008 at 10:32:11 AM EST
    I'm male, but I've been just as turned off as many others here by all the sexism and race-baiting by the Obama campaign. Sometimes it reminds me of what I've read about the 1930s. What finally clued me in were the scandalous and obviously false defamatory remarks against Ferraro, whom Obama used as a proxy for Hillary. Everything Ferraro said was true, yet she is now entombed as a racist extremist and paired with Rev. Wright forever in a speech that probably will be reprinted often. Of course Hillary has been slandered and had her words spun 180 degrees many more times and in even worse ways than that, as has Bill. I've concluded that Obama talks like a Dem but acts like a Republican, and that if elected he'll probably go back on most of his promises if convenient. And without all the fake, ad hominem attacks on Hillary, which the media treated as gospel truth, I think she would definitely have more primary votes than Obama right now, so if Obama is the nominee, I will consider him illegitimate and will write in Hillary's name on my ballot in November. Enough is enough! I will consider that an act of Dem loyalty. As for the media writing editorials that sound like faxes sent by Mr. Axelrod, I suggest writing to editors often. Even if they don't publish your letter(s), they will read it if it's well written. If they get enough letters, there will be an effect.