MoDo 's Latest Takedown of Women Voters

What's up with Maureen Dowd? Now she's suggesting American women, specifically those who supported Hillary, dislike Obama and won't for him. Her reasons are rather odd. First she compares Obama to romantic figures in Pride and Prejudice and Bridget Jones' Diary, saying women think Obama is arrogant and prideful, then she says it's because he's too skinny and then she makes it all about race.

I hate when writers paint with too broad a brush. I haven't heard a single woman say they would never vote for a man again.

I'm a former Hillary supporter who will gladly vote for Obama over McCain or a third party candidate. Taylor Marsh, among the most ardent Hillary supporter on the blogs during the primaries responds, criticizing the Hillary supporters who can't move on: [More...]

All this hand wringing by former HRC supporters who can't move on with grace has now succeeded in nothing, except getting a bad name. That these same people won't listen to reason isn't because it hasn't been offered and given in good faith. All that's needed for a new energy burst is a phrase or video to send them screaming outrage again. The denial they court is too seductive in an echo chamber that promises hope, but only delivers deceit by offering claims of something that will not come. Their political naiveté, turned to desperation, now brings only embarrassment since they're putting their own petty personal grievances before everything else, even Senator Clinton, while posturing that their anti Obama zealotry is something it's not, which is obvious to see.

They have also managed to take their cause and turn it into something that gets snorts of disrespect that resembles disgust from most Democrats, while Republicans smack their chops with anticipation, using them whenever the chance arises, which is whenever they're asked.

The other thing that's happened is that most of these rogue HRC supporters have become what they hated most. They are as bad or worse as the Obama supporters during the primaries who bombarded sites, especially this one, comment sections, hitting bloggers with vitriol and hate screed emails, including posts written by the unhinged comprised of such nonsensical gibberish that the vast majority of Democrats trying to turn the Republicans out have come to disrespect them completely.

Jesse Taylor at Pandagon is even harsher with Dowd and a great short read. Also see Sadly No. Ann Althouse responds with a question back to Dowd.

The primary is over. Sen. Barack Obama is our party's nominee. Hillary supports him. All three of TalkLeft's authors support him (even though many of our commenters of both sexes haven't come around.)

I think most American women who are Democrats do support Obama. If there's an objection to him, the one I hear most is his lack of political experience at the national level, not his life, his wife, or his weight. And that objection disintegrates in my view now that we are faced with the alternative of John McCain and another four years of Republican rule.

P.S. I don't believe there is even one woman out there who won't for a candidate out of jealousy because he's thinner than she is. If there is, I have another song for her: Linda Ronstadt's "Poor Poor Pitful Me."

< The (Dis)Respect Continues | Why John Kerry Lost >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I have a few things to say to MoDo (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:04:00 PM EST
    if I ever meet her in person. She is a poison to the discourse.

    And she has been for years (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by BernieO on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM EST
    Liberals seem to have forgotten the way she has repeatedly trashed Democrats like Clinton, Gore  Kerry and Edwards. And it was frequently by implying they were girlie men.
    Dowd is a mean-spirited, arrogant, trivial person and epitomizes what is wrong with our political pundits. When are Democrats going to wake up and stop reading her column? It is usually the most emailed one in the Times. I would love to see everyone just ignore her for a change. Then maybe she will go away.

    He's too skinny! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:06:54 PM EST
    If you thought that WSJ article speculating that Obama might be too skinny to connect with voters was one of the dumbest things ever written, you'll think it's even dumber after reading this post.

    I'd just add that "Poor Poor Pitiful Me" was originally written and performed by the late Warren Zevon.

    Warren Zevon was skinnier than me (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:36:47 PM EST
    So I never listen to his music.

    I honestly thought that article was a joke (none / 0) (#6)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    I thought it was parody of the "People aren't voting for Obama because of the way he looks" storyline. It's hard to take it seriously, actually. I'm going to keep assuming that it was a parody that simply didn't go over wall. Of course, I could be wrong. In an era where people discuss whether a candidate is showing cleavage and if a candidate is too heavy (Gore, Clinton), and makes fun of athletic activities that aren't "normal" (i.e. windsurfing). This may not be parody, after all.

    I would only add this to that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:21:36 PM EST

    He was interviewed on E! channel of all places and said he brings food on his bus everywhere he goes because he likes to eat healthy and when you're campaigning sometimes you end up in areas of the country where you can't always do that.


    I seem to recall (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    Hillary, during the primary, saying that being on the campaign trail constantly is unhealthy, because the easiest thing to do is just scarf down a slice of pizza when you can.

    If I wrote for the New York Times, I could probably write two or three columns about how Obama's superior gastric discipline won him the primary, or at least exemplifies the reasons he did.  Unfortunately, I do not write for the New York Times.


    If it wasn't apparent (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:33:19 PM EST
    Scarfing down pizza every single day is unhealthy.

    Bringing your food everywhere you go cause you can't eat what the natives eat is elitist.

    There is subtlety and there is just saying what I think I guess.


    Allow me to just say (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:36:24 PM EST
    I think you have a wonderful, dry wit, and very rarely do you have to spell the meaning out for me.  Now, I can't speak for others.

    GOP Talking Point (3.00 / 2) (#47)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:48:19 PM EST
    Thanks for sharing your GOP talking points here. I sorta miss the GOP trolls.

    Obama is an elitist, whatever that means. It must mean that he is just like Kerry, GOre and Clinton.

    Got it.


    Again (3.50 / 2) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:54:14 PM EST

    Do you think Dems are responsible for the war?  

    Karl Rove thinks so!

    Come up with a better response.


    Nice Non Sequitur (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:00:11 PM EST
    I believe we were talking about the age old GOP talking point that all democrats, especially those shooting for POTUS are elitists.

    You have repeatedly brought that talking point to TL via the wingnut echochamber.

    I do not remember you blaming the war on the Democrats, although there are several others GOP one liners that you have echoed here.


    The question is to you (5.00 / 0) (#64)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:05:41 PM EST
    We already know Obama agrees with Rove on who's responsible for the war.

    Bringing Your Own Food (none / 0) (#69)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    I guess it's only elitist when you bring HEALTHY food, right?

    Because I know folks who will, when invited somewhere they know the meal served is going to be something like salmon, broccoli and salad (something Obama apparently prefers, by the way), bring food they prefer instead like a corned beef sandwich, potato salad and cookies.

    For the record, I cringed when I saw Obama take ONE piece of candy when visiting the handmade candy place in PA and the ladies there were pressing him to take more. Or all the other occasions when he clearly was not comfortable eating the greasy, juicy delights of campaign trail munchies.

    One place Clinton bested him for sure. She always looked like she was digging in with gusto.


    Eat the food! (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:30:13 PM EST
    Kiss the babies!  Go bowling with the locals!  Well, okay, maybe skip the bowling.

    That's politics for you.  Sometimes the food isn't what you wanted to eat.  Sometimes the babies don't cooperate.


    That's a side of Obama (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:58:06 PM EST
    I might vote for.

    I Always Feel Sorry for the Babies (none / 0) (#82)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:08:00 PM EST
    who are thrust at the candidates. The candidates, too, for that matter, but hey, that's their job.

    At least, they don't kiss the babies any more, if they ever did. Yuck.


    A Zevon song will be my (none / 0) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:25:07 PM EST
    late night post tonight.

    "Looking for the next Best Thing" (none / 0) (#100)
    by ruffian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:39:35 PM EST
    For all us Hillary supporters voting for Obama.

    I appreciate the best,
    but Im settling for less
    I'm looking for the next best thing.

    Much Better Than (none / 0) (#101)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:53:12 PM EST
    The least of two evils.

    Thank you Jeralyn. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by TChris on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:08:45 PM EST
    I agree wholeheartedly.

    I would venture to say that (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    contrary to what MoDo thinks, it's not the voters who are the problem...

    respectfully disagree somewhat, (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by ghost2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:17:31 PM EST
    I haven't spent much time on Taylor's site lately, but regarding the latest video, based on the few comments that I read, it was Taylor herserf that was over-reacting.  Even Scan found it amusing, and Scan is no PUMA.

    See here and here.

    Like Scan, I don't understand her reaction.  The video (see second diary for it) was very clear, IMO.  For the record, so was Hillary's support of Obama.  

    TM is MoDo in training (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST
    She just needs a few years to get caught up on the incoherence and vitriol front.  But she's made a good start.  Alternate model:  Randi Rhodes.

    I find it interesting you would cite Taylor.  I think you meant to give credibility to her statements by pointing out she used to be a Clinton supporter, but by juxtaposing her with Dowd have only presented different spots on the same evolutionary timeline.

    TChris, Jeralyn, and any others who buy TM's characterizations, I encourage you to comapare her 'essay' with Heidi Li's thoughtful discussions of the nomination and what it means to be a Hillary supporter at this time.  Then come talk about who sounds 'unhinged' while spouting 'nonsensical gibberish'.


    Well said, Valhalla - (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:06:49 PM EST
    I completely agree.  I was searching for someone to compare Taylor Marsh to, and Randi Rhodes fits like a glove.

    I really hate the narcissism of Taylor bringing the nasty e-mails she receives into her blog so she has the excuse of ripping people in public.  Seems to me that if someone took the time to go off-blog with whatever was bugging them, the least Taylor could do was keep it off-blog.  

    I guess she thinks being the object of ugly e-mail is a badge of honor that she feels obligated to trumpet to her readers: "See?  Look how important I am - people actually hate me!"

    And that Christina person who guest-posts long and factually deficient screeds against Hillary supporters was the last straw for me.


    i respect someone who says up front (none / 0) (#94)
    by hellothere on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:56:04 PM EST
    what their positions are. taylor marsh did say what she would do but the manner in which she has done it also says a lot about her. she has also bashed hillary since the time she switched her support. there is nothing to respect there.

    You said it, Valhalla! n/t (none / 0) (#114)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 12:45:03 AM EST
    I strongly disagree with her (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by daria g on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:12:57 AM EST
    All this hand wringing by former HRC supporters who can't move on with grace has now succeeded in nothing, except getting a bad name.

    What is this nonsense?  No one should give up a fight for his/her principles because of the fear of "getting a bad name" or the loss of the "respect" of unnamed Democrats, who for all I know are the ones who've proven adept at losing plenty of national elections. This reeks - we made Maureen Dowd write a snotty column, did we?  Such a step beyond the pale for her!  And if we did, who cares?

    Taylor Marsh is using sexist personal attacks - we're showing "desperation", we're being irrational.  Why not disagree with facts and logic, instead. Is Jeralyn quoting her with tacit approval?  Marsh is as bad as Dowd here.


    Taylor Marsh (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
    Is not a good advocate in this case.

    She paints with too broad a brush and you say you hate it when people do that.

    Agreed. (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by ghost2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:25:33 PM EST
    I will always respect Taylor for how she stuck up for Hillary during the primaries despite really harsh treatment, both from crazies and from certain other bloggers who allowed their posters to go crazy.  But here, she was over-reacting.  

    I linked two 'diaries' (really 'hot topics') on her site below.  Notice, she is the one who calls others sad and wacko.  Here's her quote:

    This is laugh out loud hilarious. The video is representative of just how wacko you people have become.

    Yeah, and you know why HRC said that? Because she's negotiating with Barack Obama, THE NOMINEE, and the DNC who control the process.

    Honestly, you all are sounding more and more unhinged as Denver gets closer.

    This is part of my answer:

    I honestly think that Obama's campaign is really afraid of PUMA's fantasy becoming reality. They like to have things under their "control". I concede that it is how politics works.

    Also just to add my 2 cents, saying that the "nominee" has all the power, regardless of what the democratic party rules and charter say, is authoritarian and a recipe for disaster. Plus, Obama is the presumptive nomineeuntil he becomes the official nominee by the (you guessed it) the vote of the convention.

    Need I remind anyone that in a democracy, the Presidents are humble servants, not Kings?

    Taylor Marsh has become incoherent (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    I can't understand what she is trying to say.

    Yall are taking Taylor out of context. (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by TheJoker on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    She was and has been responding to those attacking HER for "betraying" women and the party. She pointed
    out specific emails charging her with that. She WAS NOT attacking people who are not voting for BO. T. Marsh was one of the strongest supporters of HRC and the hate she got was beyond disgraceful.

    No I am not. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ghost2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:35:23 PM EST
    See the hot topics I mentioned.  Here and here.  

    Also please read my post. (none / 0) (#39)
    by ghost2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:38:56 PM EST
    I conceded that I haven't participated that much in her site (lately) to know who was attacking whom, but I said she was over-reacting on the topics of roll call and the video which came out.  

    Video is here, by the way.  


    Yes Modo is a %$%%^&$###$%% (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST
    When someone mentioned her column in another thread this was my response.  It works for this thread too.

    but my concerns for my blood pressure stopped me soon into it.  That woman is the worst thing that every happened to female journalists.  Her hatred of all things Clinton keeps her firmly in the millionaire Irish Catholic Boy's Club Auxillary.  She is indeed everything many of aspired to not be...scathing and nasty to other women whom one perceives as a threat to her "power."  Maureen is the classic "the boys like me because I never threaten them" and therefore I am the #female....the one that makes them happy because she never demands to be their equal happily following the dictates of her paternalistic upbringing.

    Hillary and Hillary supporters scare MoDo.  We are "uppity" and do not know OUR place.  Any male, regardless of race, ethnicity, education or lack thereof, work ethic or lack thereof, is better than any female....that's MoDo. She is the ultimate misogynist protecting her place with a vengeance.

    Of course she was equally nasty to men who did not fill her "macho" view of what men should be.  Bush vs Gore, her disgust with Al was evident.  Was it the macho factor?  the hatred for anyone associated with the Clintons factor?  Or both? I believe the last.  

    Weird! In order to praise Obama she must trash women.  And then in order to "support" McCain she must feminize Obama.  Why this woman has a following among any progressives is a puzzle.

    Well, how about considering (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    that maybe those people (let's be fair -- there are lots of men too, not just women) won't vote for Obama because they believe he's inexperienced, unprepared and simply not fit to be President?

    Who cares if he's fat or skinny? Tall or short? Black or white? Arrogant or unassuming?

    And if they're not voting for him, maybe they've decided to just sit this election out altogether, or vote only down-ticket?

    It doesn't mean they're voting for McCain or a third-party candidate even.

    It's just nonsense to expect every Hillary supporter to fall in line behind Obama just because he's (in all likelihood) going to be the Democratic nominee. Just nonsense.

    Dowd needs a massive dose of reality, and a long vacation away from politics and her tony Georgetown-DC home-office.

    Dowd, like so many (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:54:57 PM EST
    (including Taylor Marsh) can't or won't understand what real concerns are driving Hillary hold-outs. It's so much easier to assign your own (false) motives - they're acting out of spite and hurt feelings, they're grieving, they're bitter dried up nasty old man-hating crones, they're racists, they're Republicans. This allows Dowd and Marsh and others the ability to ridicule what they refuse to understand.

    Jeraly: Sorry to see (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:23:51 PM EST
    you quoting Taylor Marsh: that was one of the most insulting writings she ever made. How pitiful.

    Sorry to see this Taylor Marsh Quote, too (none / 0) (#115)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:06:52 AM EST
    It is always sad to see liberal pundits fall completely over the edge with their nonsense generalizations. Obviously, she doesn't have a clue re those voters who once supported Hillary Clinton and now refuse to fall in line with the Obama folks.

    I have only read her site a couple months or so during the primaries. Had no idea who she was before that. That will be it then for me. Another Randi Rhodes, indeed. Not worth my time.


    Obama is no Mark Darcy... (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by kredwyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:25:30 PM EST

    And Colin Firth got to play him twice. (none / 0) (#48)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:50:47 PM EST
    Now Chris Matthews, there is someone who makes me tingle. I love both versions. BTW, I might think someone is arrogant but prideful never comes to mind unless they are trying to save face.

    Maureen Dowd (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by Andy08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:28:03 PM EST
    just a sFrank Rich and Co,. have been some of the most vicious and destructive journalists out there during the primaries. This is about hating the Clintons and her supporters. The two dimensional caricature of the many reasons why many people do not support Obama only reflects poorly on the author. Maureen Dowd stopped being taken seriously a long time ago.

    On some level I suppose MoDodo (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    should be pitied.  It is obvious her car is waaaaaaaaaay off the rails.  

    I actually HAVE moved on (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    I loved the idea of Barack Obama, then saw him in interviews and realized that the hype didn't meet reality.  I rejected him in December.  Period.  Cringe.

    I expect him to be a Jimmy Carteresque candidate. (see his idea of tire inflation to eliminate drilling.  It might be a big saver, but to Joe average, it's the equivalent of Jimmy Carter's telling people to put on a sweater.)

    I think a Jimmy Carteresque candidate will do exactly what Jimmy Carter did -- ensure many, many more Republican presidents to come.

    Then, see RBC/illegitimacy, see Harry and Louise, see "it's between your doctor, your husband, and your minister, and, um, you".  I don't need to say anymore.

    But I've moved on, gotten over it.  I don't care anymore that Hillary didn't win, because Hillary plays the game just as any Democratic party insider would. Bleh, vomit, cringe. I'm not a party insider, so I don't have to play the game.

    Moving on doesn't mean I'll support a candidate whom I think is weak and bad for the Democratic brand.  Doesn't mean I'll necessarily vote for McCain.  We have several other candidates on the ballot to choose from.

    It does mean that I will have a much healthier viewpoint in November, when I can munch popcorn and see who wins without feeling any passion whatsoever about the outcome.

    But, contrary to Taylor Marsh's belief, bullying people into "getting over it" is self-defeating.  I wish her luck with that.  

    And BTW, today I've decided I reject that cat-like organization, unmentionable here.  I think they've become elitist just like many other Democratic organizations have.  For whatever reason, it seems very easy for "Whole Foods" Democrats to become elitist.  

    It's a movement (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:37:57 PM EST
    Albeit a counter-movement, a collective rejection of something hateful, but it's still just a movement.

    There is no "they", nor an (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:42:39 PM EST
    official "organization".

    You're right (none / 0) (#46)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:47:08 PM EST
    I painted with too broad of brush.  I'll say there's some really painful elitism or even "clickishness" with some of the members, but definitely not all.

    There are bells going off on some things... (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:00:54 PM EST
    "it's between your doctor, your husband, and your minister, and, um, you".
    First of all, there are many no husbands and it should be YOU who makes the decision. We already know what the minister will say. That scares me.

    And FISA and the ENERGY Bill, these were slam dunk NO votes. His vote did not make a difference in the outcome but it made a difference that he voted with Bush. He should have voted NO on every Iraq spending vote because he says he was against the Iraq war. Just these few things have me wondering which version will show up for the Presidents job. The bells are going off now and we not not holding his feet to the fire.


    You Don't Necessarily Know (none / 0) (#77)
    by daring grace on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:38:37 PM EST
    what the minister will say...

    But first, Obama never said husbands', doctors' and ministers' views should override a woman's where an abortion is concerned. He suggested, by citing that list of people that a woman and her own circle of support are the only ones who should have a say--the people she chooses to involve in her decision.

    His comment echoes one from NARAL which is quoted in the article I link to below:

    "NARAL has long stressed that abortion is a decision to be made not by lawmakers or courts, but by a woman, her doctor, and her family. In a recent interview, however, Nancy Keenan, NARAL president, added a fourth party to the decision. Abortion, she said repeatedly, is ``a private decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her god.""

    As for ministers. it might surprise you and others around here that many religious people and denominations are pro choice, including:


    a Baptist minister in New York City, founded [in the late 1960s] what he recently described as a ``faith-based organization." Its purpose, he later wrote, was ``to defy an oppressive and unjust law." Moody believed that ``freedom of choice is what makes us human and responsible." His Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion, a network that eventually included more than 1,200 clergy members nationwide, referred thousands of women to doctors known to provide safe abortions in the US and abroad.


    ITA - Fabulous post, Teresa! (none / 0) (#116)
    by bridget on Tue Aug 05, 2008 at 01:20:01 AM EST
    incl. the update :)

    I moved on quite some time ago, too. And whatever I decide to do now or in November has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton. Like you said, she plays the party game or has to. I don't. Btw. I don't watch TV   news, I don't read blogs either except for TL and a few old favs now and then. Life is so much better this way.  

    "It does mean that I will have a much healthier viewpoint in November, when I can munch popcorn and see who wins without feeling any passion whatsoever about the outcome."



    Dowd should... (5.00 / 0) (#30)
    by Marco21 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:32:48 PM EST
    take a hint from Obama. Her diet consists of so much crazy, she's starting to balloon.

    Stay slim, Maureen. Take a break from snacking on right wing idiocy and have something healthy for a change.

    Everyone is talking about Modo... (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by mogal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    which is the purpose of her writing. As an "older wiser woman" I say just ignor her.

    I very much agree with the point (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by frankly0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:37:32 PM EST
    that I have never heard of a single woman, in person, on any media show, or on any blog, or in any comment on a blog, declare that they would never vote for another man.

    Maybe such people exist -- indeed, no doubt they do. But they almost certainly are so miniscule in number that they are dwarfed by the individuals-who-have-experienced-anal-probes-during-alien-abduction vote.

    Maureen Dowd is a clown desperate for laughs for acting as if it's otherwise.

    Poor Taylor (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    seems she's in a bit of denial.  Looks like she isn't seeing that most of Hillary's voters have moved on.  They know they will be either not voting, voting 3rd, voting McCain or writing Hillary's name in.

    Or does she just want to pretend because she can't admit so many of the base of the Democrats won't just fall in line with whom they selected and pushed at us with his only consistent message of being, 3 things, "I lie, I flip and I will sell out any principled position".

    Seems Taylor and others can't move on and want to still use the OLD Camp Obama talking points.

    AND, on the other EXTREMIST, MoDowd (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by environmentally blue on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM EST
    who seems to be voting based on her loins as well, I agree, she deserves an award for the most dramatic actress, never heard one person say they would never vote for a man again either.   Maybe she's living in the same make believe world as Obama and that thought just came to her playful mind.

    I think it's different this time (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Saul on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    Many HRC will not vote for Obama period come November.  Either they will sit it out or vote for a third party candidate or McCain.  

    Just because he won and Hilary supports him still does not mean a lot of Hilary supporters are just going to move over to Obama.  It's different this time. I think the Hilary group that will not vote for Obama is a considerable amount of voters.

    Also although all three TL authors support Obama does that mean all three will vote for Obama?  Jeralyn, your on the record in a past thread as  saying if Obama picked Biden for VP then to count me out. That can only  mean you would not vote for that Obama ticket.  So apparently  the full  support for Obama comes with some caveats.  

    Biden is a deal breaker for me (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:51:20 PM EST
    but he's the only one and I don't expect him to be the VP candidate. So yes, barring that, I'll be voting for Sen. Obama.

    Never vote for a man again? (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:53:15 PM EST
    As much as I think Hillary were the superior candidate for President, I'd happily switch out Obama for Gore and I would certainly vote for him.  Where does she get this stuff?

    That Taylor Marsh excerpt was about as (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:55:22 PM EST
    offensive a piece of writing as I've seen on a site that at one time was as rabid in its support of Hillary Clinton as DK was in its hatred of her.

    It's offensive on many levels, not the least of which is that she has turned so completely on readers whose support she enjoyed and encouraged only a few months ago.  She nurtured and fed the anger, and now wants to turn it on its head and make it something she reviles?  She's gone from skewering Obama to defending him, even though as a nominee, his positions are actually worse than they were during the primary.  Sure, I get that she is committed to supporting the nominee, but the personal and vicious way she attacks those who cannot support Obama is appalling.  For someone who holds herself out as an honest broker, she sure makes a lot of assumptions about why people have not been able to flip the switch and start supporting a nominee and a party structure that they feel betrayed and disrespected them.

    As for Maureen Dowd - I simply do not read her anymore.  Dowd has nothing to say that I can't live without knowing; all her columns do is display for all the world that she must have the most exquisitely pitiful personal life that she has to write such trash.

    I think that there are a lot of (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by frankly0 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    bloggers and others who supported Hillary in the primaries who are in a very tough spot in how they handle Obama now that he has effectively won the nomination.

    Mostly, these bloggers were pretty emphatic, sometimes even vituperative, in their criticism of Obama during the primaries, and genuinely outraged at the smears to which his side subjected Hillary.

    Yet they were mostly on record from early on as being committed to supporting the Democratic nominee no matter who won. In a way, even being a blogger puts one in a position of "responsibility" such that it would be hard not to make that commitment, or not to stick with it after it has been made.

    So they were all formally obliged to rally behind Obama after he effectively won.

    But the problem is there's no good way of squaring that support with everything that they had said about Obama before.

    So they end up careening across the spectrum, one moment vilifying Obama supporters for being too much in the tank, another moment lambasting Hillary supporters for not "falling in line".

    Really, there's no underlying consistency. The two attitudes can't be squared with each other. If Obama was as bad as these bloggers maintained before he won, he can be "supported" only in the weakest way possible -- as the lesser of two evils, at the very best. And it's very hard to argue convincingly against those Hillary supporters who take a contrary view, namely that they aren't going to support Obama, and will wait until 2012 to try to correct things.

    For those of us who aren't in positions of "responsibility", it's a lot easier simply to vote our real preferences, and not to have to go through a sham show of "support" for a nominee who simply turns us off mightily. We can simply say, Wait until next cycle.


    A good way to support (5.00 / 0) (#83)
    by Fabian on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM EST
    Obama would be to completely ignore all the campaign cr@p and just do a series on his stated policy stands.  Make it as factual as possible and dry as dust.

    You would be doing a service to people who dislike the high drama and insubstantial nature of political campaigns and prefer issues and substance.  Your page views might drop a little...or a lot, but it would be for a Good Cause.


    This is true (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Roz on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:13:52 PM EST
    and sadly TM's problem. I also assume that being the object of hate and vitriol from all sides has thrown her off balance.

    But why feel formally obliged to to rally behind Obama? Only a misplaced sense of self-importance would make a blogger feel so obliged. Whence does the obligation spring?


    "Most American Women Who Are Democrats" (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:58:44 PM EST
    I'm not sure this is true.  If 'most' means 'a majority' (the AP definition, where 53% = 'most') then I guess it does.  

    But I've always understood 'most' to mean 'close to all' or 'almost there but not quite the whole thing'.

    Dick Morris had some interesting poll numbers about Obama's slack support among women generally and women over 40 particularly.  Note - numbers are not just Dem women.  I don't reference Morris for his analysis, which is sillier and more tone-deaf than Dowd's, but for the numbers he collected in one place.

    I haven't seen any Clinton-supporter specific polls since the CNN and (I think) Newsweek ones showing 47-48% of her primary voters were not switching to Obama.  But if even only half of that nearly half of primary voters are female, then that's a significant chunk.  Millions, in fact.

    As much as I migh like to think those are all big cat gals, I doubt they are.

    So, I question 'most'.

    But I agree Dowd's take is silly.  And damaging, as taking about his skinniness as if it's a factor just frames women as weight-obsessed superficial airheads, rather than as legitimate political actors as anyone else.

    I heard a disturbing statistic today, but (none / 0) (#87)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:21:56 PM EST
    am pretty sure it is inaccurate as it came out of the mouth of Chuckles Todd....78% of Hillary voters will vote for obama.  Maybe it was a poll he took using Tweety, Shuster, Gregory and himself...

    I wonder where they got that number? (none / 0) (#109)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:14:37 PM EST
    I haven't seen any new polls of Hillary voters.  

    Taylor Undermines Her Own Argument (5.00 / 8) (#62)
    by JoeCHI on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:04:37 PM EST
    I am a long-time fan of Taylor's.  That said, this post that Jeralyln cites isn't Taylor at her best.

    Taylor writes:

    "The other thing that's happened is that most of these rogue HRC supporters have become what they hated most. They are as bad or worse as the Obama supporters during the primaries who bombarded sites, especially this one, comment sections, hitting bloggers with vitriol and hate screed emails, including posts written by the unhinged comprised of such nonsensical gibberish that the vast majority of Democrats trying to turn the Republicans out have come to disrespect them completely."

    Incongruously, Taylor writes the above paragraph just after she launches into a series of ad hominem attacks by calling those of us who aren't voting for Obama ridiculous, graceless, unreasonable, screaming outrage, in-denial, embarrassing, deceitful, naive, desperate, posturing, disgusting, and zealots in the paragraph preceding it.  

    Can you taste the irony?

    There was a time when Taylor emphatically stated that she understood and respected the deeply personal decisions that goes into casting a vote, be it a vote of full-advocacy, or "a protest vote" (her words). Sadly, her post, dripping with personal invective, undermines her previous pledge of mutual respect, as well as her mostly excellent body of work.

    Taylor confused her regulars (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:29:56 PM EST
    with how instantly she switched her alliance. She didn't allow so much as a day in transition to those people who didn't only support her site with a constant flow of "hits", but she cut off her greatest financial contributors. She did it in such a way that it became impossible to believe she wasn't really an Obama supporter all along who was pretending to be HRC's greatest fan for all the positives it was bringing to her personally.

    For so many who can't get behind Obama, it is a matter of the DNC failing its membership and forcing a candidate on them that was not their candidate of choice, and not one who they could agree brings a promising future to the country. Really, this isn't all about Hillary, which is why even she can't get her supporters to move to the presumptive candidate.


    Taylors new Obamabuddies® (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by OxyCon on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:45:19 PM EST
    Are going to dump her on November 5th. They are just minders, sent by Obama to keep Marsh on their side until the election. Now that Taylor has taken to insulting so many of her readers, I think she will be talking to herself by Thanksgiving.
    If you are a blogger, it's OK to have an opinion. That's why you have attracted your readers. But when you start insulting your readers, you can count on your traffic going down the tubes.
    Just out of curiosity, I scanned over Marsh's recent blog comments. I noticed she had 200 to 300 comments, but on closer inspection, I noticed that the same three people wrote what seemed like 80% of the comments. And all they were doing was attacking one lone dissenter.

    Moving on. (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:07:51 PM EST
    When these folks write that Hillary supporters should move on, they don't mean it. Many Hillary supporters have moved on.
    They are no longer interested in the democratic party.

    We are asked not to write just to criticize Obama.

    But what has been happening lately that is praiseworthy?

    The latest:
    He calls the killing of Sean Bell, "a problem".
    He changes his position on off-shore oil drilling.
    He again reiterates his opposition to reparations for the descendants of people who were enslaved in the U.S.

    Add to that:
    -his waffling on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq on a fixed timetable.

    • his vote for FISA.
    • his consideration of Kaine as V.P. (or the interpretation that he is floating it to shake up women.)

    and on and on.

    What is he saying or doing to woo us?
    Why should we vote for him?
    The only answer we seem to be presented with is "he's not McCain."

    That may not be enough.

    Obama flirts with Modo all the time (5.00 / 0) (#74)
    by OxyCon on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:30:53 PM EST
    looks like it is paying off, too.

    Having Digested This Post (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:20:16 PM EST
    I feel that these continued efforts by MoDo, Taylor Marsh and their friends in the media to tell Clinton's supporters to "get over it, or else" risk being called (1) a racist (2) a McCain shill (3) a Republican (4) a traitor and every other insult in the book is only going to harden the feelings of disgust and anger among them against Obama, his supporters and the DNC.

    Also, don't forget there is a silent group of people (consisting of Independents, On-The-Walls and even some Republicans) who are watching all of this unfold and may turn around an (1) not vote for Obama as they planned to; or (2) vote for McCain or a 3rd-party; or (3) not vote at all.

    Good job everybody. You're doing a great (dis)service to Obama for November. Keep it up.

    good post jeralyn (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by skippybkroo on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:30:13 PM EST
    very happy to read these words on your blog, jeralyn!

    MoDo (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by chrisvee on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:13:47 PM EST
    I just find her pseudopsychological analysis and her pop cultural references to be both unfunny and unenlightening.

    In this particular case, I also think she's dead wrong. Frankly (and I realize this is anecdotal evidence but what else does MoDo have?) every woman I know who passionately supported Hillary loves Mr. Darcy in both of those works of literature.

    Perhaps MoDo should credit women with having the acumen and sense to evaluate a presidential candidate on his/her merits rather than by comparing him/her to fictional characters.

    Ugh. She's just an awful writer IMHO. I can't believe her column is published in the NYT.  Is this what passes for wit today?

    As a Clinton supporter (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 07:38:09 PM EST
    I have moved on...to the Green Party.  A lot of Clinton supporters that I know have moved on to either another candidate, dropping their party affiliation or not going to vote this November.

    Taylor Marsh, a great advocate for HRC, has every right to try and push the idea that Hillary wants her supporters to back Obama.

    It's our right to ignore it.  

    As for Maureen O'Dowd, she's just another paid writer to add her .02 to the political discourse.  I see no difference between her, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Michelle Malkin or Dear Abby.

    MoDo and Taylor Marsh... (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by HypeJersey on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:26:52 PM EST
    Are both dripping with toxin.  MoDo's column is meant to do whatever necessary to stir the pot.  And it's a double bonus if she can express more hate onto Clinton.  Taylor Marsh says she's moved on from the primary, but you wouldn't know it.  So much energy there dedicated to PUMA and focused on fanning the flames.

    Maureen Dowd is a gossip columnist (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Miri on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:16:25 PM EST
    James Wolcott calls Maureen Dowd "Rona Barrett of the Beltway".

    Taylor Marsh? Who is she and why should we care what she thinks?

    What people don't understand is that this is not about Hillary.

    I will not vote for Obama because I believe in the long run he will be more damaging to the country than McCain.

    Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Miri on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:22:26 PM EST
    "So from their point of view, instant concession was their birthright."


    Actually Obama Cultists would have preferred it if Hillary conceded in January and then went into exile.

    These people had no problem with Reagan taking it to the convention, even Kennedy with far fewer delegates.

    But with Hillary "Clinton rules" apply. Hillary had a duty to humanity to drop out in January.

    Speak For Yourself (3.50 / 2) (#78)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:44:38 PM EST
    Never ever quote Taylor Marsh again if you actually want HRC supporters to take you seriously.

    He/She was speaking for himself/herself (2.00 / 1) (#80)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST
    The entire comment has only "I" statements.

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 04:01:04 PM EST
    Never ever quote Taylor Marsh if you actually want HRC supporters to take you seriously.



    MoDo is moron. (3.00 / 1) (#4)
    by TheJoker on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:15:18 PM EST
    She obviously spends too much time lurking in PUMA "quarters" (pun intended). Most of the people NOT supporting Obama don't fit any of her ridiculous criteria.

    Please don't associate her with PUMA (5.00 / 8) (#10)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:20:02 PM EST
    She has never been loyal to the Democratic party, so there is no reason to think that she's rejecting unity at this time - she never showed unity. She simply writes negatively about whatever candidate she is currently getting attention by writing negatively about.

    Oh well you have a point there dianem. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by TheJoker on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:23:15 PM EST
    I stand corrected.

    Oops, TheJoker (none / 0) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    I wrote my other comment before I saw this one.

    It's cool Valhalla. (none / 0) (#43)
    by TheJoker on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:44:45 PM EST
    You are more polite than I (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    Do Not effin' associate PUMA with MoDo.

    Just because Dowd is female doesn't mean she speaks for all women, some women, or any subset, in fact, of women, nevermind Clinton supporters.  She is anathema to PUMAs.


    Associate? (none / 0) (#23)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:29:22 PM EST
    She is writing about PUMAs, not associating with them..

    Squeaky, (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 06:59:09 PM EST
    Jeralyn has asked those of us who are PUMAs to refrain from discussing the movement here at TalkLeft. We try very hard to respect her wishes. If you want to trash us, there are over 250 websites where you can do that, and we can respond.  Please join us in respecting Jeralyn's request.  Thanks.

    Sorry Not Interested (none / 0) (#95)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:22:00 PM EST
    In PUMA sites, You all came here, to TL as a refuge. And that is fine, with me.

    It is clear that some commenters are disseminating GOP talking points. Sorry for suggesting that they are PUMA comments. It could be that the commenters are Republicans, or Independents working for McSame.


    We were actually already here long before (none / 0) (#96)
    by samanthasmom on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:26:00 PM EST
    the primaries ended.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:37:29 PM EST
    I have been here a few years, you all seem rather new to me. Hard to not notice, imo.

    Well, you are right about the refuge, just not (none / 0) (#102)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 08:56:22 PM EST
    about the timing.  I was probably one of the most recent joiners, and I signed on here at TL in May.

    Oh, I See (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:17:40 PM EST
    Well then, welcome to TL.! I Hope you stick around

    My comment was about "refuge" (none / 0) (#112)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 07:20:47 AM EST
    Many of us came here at the beginning of the primaries as "Hillary supporters" as Jeralyn was. When she switched her support to Obama, many of us said our good-byes, but we were invited to stay as long as we played by Jeralyn's rules. We didn't come here to get away from somewhere else.

    Your Case May Be Unique (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 01:14:14 PM EST
    Most of the flock that landed at TL starting around January, were loathing the treatment that they got at other sites that were supporting Obama.

    Many seemed to be long time kos commenters who were driven away by the hate there. Ironically some brought the hate here.


    She's nothing but (4.00 / 2) (#20)
    by pie on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    an opportunist, but hey, a person's gotta make a living.

    I called someone a moron (none / 0) (#8)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    Last night.

    yes please don't call people names (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:26:25 PM EST
    I'll not do it gladly, but I'll do it. (none / 0) (#25)
    by Burned on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:30:19 PM EST
    Just like I did with Kerry.
    I'll GLADLY vote the day my choice of candidate actually makes it to the final round.

    I think Dowd was just looking for a way to use the phrase "enshrine the whine."

    I think there are more than a few pundits... (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by EL seattle on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:24:25 PM EST
    ... who come up with a "zinger" and can't wait to write an item (any item) backwards from there.

    Why was my link to Hillary (none / 0) (#54)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:55:49 PM EST
    asking people to respect her voters and not tell them to "just get over it" deleted?

    I suspect (none / 0) (#56)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 02:59:57 PM EST
    it was because of the linking policy.

    Ok, well this should work then: (none / 0) (#60)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:02:02 PM EST
    This is in response to Taylor's criticism (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:05:00 PM EST
    of Hillary supporters who haven't "moved on" to Obama yet.  Hillary asks here for her voters to be respected and says it will take time, don't tell them to just get over it.

    She's so right (5.00 / 7) (#67)
    by Steve M on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:12:13 PM EST
    You know, Hillary has gotten almost no credit for the virtually unprecedented act of turning around and giving her primary opponent 100% support on a dime.  People compliment her for making a nice speech or whatever, but they don't seem to grasp that it's more remarkable than that.  This is not the standard paradigm.

    Instead, the Obama supporters act like it's their birthright, like of COURSE Hillary would turn right around on a dime and start working for Obama 24/7, as opposed to thinking "gee, maybe we were wrong about her, she really is a good Democrat."  All they can do is spend their time taunting recalcitrant Clinton supporters for not managing to be as magnanimous as she is, which is completely unproductive.


    She strikes me as very maternal in this (5.00 / 0) (#70)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:24:31 PM EST
    video.  What she did, turning on a dime, was unprecedented and extremely kind to her opponent, and she's telling people(I'd include Taylor here) back off my supporters.  Give them some respect, space and time, something she didn't ask for herself.

    To credit her justly would be to admit (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:33:16 PM EST
    she isn't the devil they claim she is.

    Well, that is because Obama supporters (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:00:11 PM EST
    expected her to give up the race in Obama's favor before Ohio.  So continuing to the end was obviously selfish and ungenerous of her.  Also, narrow-interestedly winning the last states by huge margins was a clear insult.

    So from their point of view, instant concession was their birthright.


    please use html coding (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    do not post urls in the comments. Use the link button at the top of your comment box.

    This one didn't skew the site but it gives others the idea they can post urls too and I don't want the site skewed and have to spend time searching threads for the problematic comment.

    Again, don't put urls in comments unless they are in html format. Thanks.


    you can't post long links here (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:00:39 PM EST
    they skew the site and your comment has to be deleted. See the comment rules.

    Gotcha. Thanks. (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by masslib on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 03:02:15 PM EST
    Haven't Come Around (none / 0) (#88)
    by fctchekr on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 05:27:28 PM EST
    Where were you when Dowd was bashing Hillary?
    Ditto Steve M.

    PUMA (none / 0) (#108)
    by Miri on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 09:42:58 PM EST
    "And BTW, today I've decided I reject that cat-like organization, unmentionable here."

    I think it is useful in the sense that it reminds people there are Democrats who will not "fall in line".

    Just like liberal websites for non Obama cultists are useful. We don't agree with Kossacks. It is good to have alternative web sites.

    I have woman friends say they would work (none / 0) (#110)
    by debcoop on Sun Aug 03, 2008 at 11:37:13 PM EST
    for another man