Why Women Support Obama-Biden

(Video removed by You Tube)

Why do women, including some major former Hillary Clinton supporters, support Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden? I had the opportunity to interview two women's rights leaders at the CNN Grill at during the Democratic National Convention in Denver this week.

The interview above is of Katherine Spillar,Executive Vice President of the Feminist Majority Foundation and Feminist Majority. My interview with Eleanor Smeal, President of the Feminist Majority and former President of NOW has also been removed.

< McCain/Palin on Equal Pay | The Republican View of the Economy >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    How women vote (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:38:17 PM EST
    will decide this election.

    Just not in the way people think.

    I love these cryptic comments. (none / 0) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:41:31 PM EST
    Jeralyn: (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:38:32 PM EST
    How did you feel about Katherine's response to your question about Joe Biden? Did you agree with all that she said, and is/was Biden all about women's rights?

    Also, I see Katherine sits on the Fair Vote Advisory Committee with a 'Jesse Jackson Jr.' I shudder to think if this is the same JJJr. that disrespected his own father and bashed Hillary Clinton on national TV.

    BTW, thank you for the video interviews. That new video gadget is really amazing, and you seemed to have made use of it very well.

    Women's rights (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:58:42 PM EST
    is not my core issue. Rights of the accused and fairness in the criminal justice system are my primary concerns, and after that, health care, social security and care for the elderly.

    My support for Hillary was never based on her being a woman, it was based on my belief she was the most qualified for the job, good on most issues and had the clout in Washington to push her agenda through even a hostile Congress. Plus, I believed that even though not great on crime issues, she was as good as the others and the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.

    Joe Biden has been good for women's rights. What they say in my interview is true. He's been  bad on crime issues which is why I opposed his nomination so strongly. But bad as he has been, McCain and Republicans, particularly those in Congress, are far, far worse.  

    No Democratic candidate this year, except Kucinich who had no chance of winning, is good on crime issues. They aren't even particularly well informed. I'm not talking about protecting the rights of the innocent accused, everybody is for that. I'm talking about protecting the constitutional rights of everyone accused of crime. Biden has been good at funding prevention but terrible in his draconian crime bills that he pushes year after year. He's all about furthering the interests of law enforcement. Obama and Hillary were better than him, but I didn't like that for a while, Obama was painted as a liberal on crime issues when he's no different or better than the others.

    With the primaries over, it's about who will cause the most damage, and that's McCain and the Republicans. So I'm happy to join forces with women's rights groups on this one.

    And with the general election at hand, I no longer believe the devil you know is better than the devil you don't. I'm ready to buy that pig in a poke and take a chance on the candidate with the better position on most issues than the candidate with the worst position on issues. That's McCain.

    So I'm firmly in support of Obama-Biden.


    Thanks for the reply (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:20:53 PM EST
    So, if Obama is elected, he'll hopefully ensure that this will come to an end:
    Biden has been ... terrible in his draconian crime bills that he pushes year after year.

    And I concur:

    My support for Hillary ... was based on my belief she was the most qualified for the job, good on most issues and had the clout in Washington to push her agenda through even a hostile Congress.

    Well, Biden won't be in congress making laws (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:35:43 PM EST
    anymore. And as between him and McCain having control over the Justice Dept. I'd hate for it to be McCain.

    I concur also (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by nycstray on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:42:53 PM EST
    My support for Hillary ... was based on my belief she was the most qualified for the job, good on most issues and had the clout in Washington to push her agenda through even a hostile Congress.

    I was looking forward to something finally getting done.


    Same here (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by Brookhaven on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:54:47 PM EST
    Also, that she's a leader.  That she's a partisan fighter.  That she's a Dem who believes in Dem principles and the New Deal, Fair Deal and Great Society programs and will fight tooth and nail to keep them and not gut them as the Republicans have tried to do.  That she sees Gov as part of that village she speaks about to make people's lives better.  That she's scary smart about policy, domestic and foreign.  Her being a woman was the bow on top of all of this.  In political terms, she was as close to the perfect storm for me as could be of what I'm looking for in a public leader.

    As someone said downpage, economics and healthcare and foreign policy are important to me but these are all women's issues so it's hard to separate the two.  


    Heh. Me too (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:30:49 PM EST
    except in reverse order:  Economy, healthcare.  I'd then put the basic issue of "fairness" in the number 3 slot (and that would include women's issues).  

    And for me it's (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:58:55 PM EST
    health care, education, the justice system and the economy and no particular order because all are connected.

    I am a retired teacher.  When we were finally getting tech into our classrooms in the 90s, one of the easiest/cheapest things to teach was databases...and in the early years, before schools had access to the net we could get "magazine" software for schools.  With one computer and an old LCD projector my middle school kids could see how things like education, economy and mortality were related.  It was a great incentive for kids...the better educated a country was, the longer and healthy our lives and the better the food and "stuff."  

    Sadly, since W, those correlations are falling apart because instead of educating kids, we are teaching them to take tests.  We are cutting the arts and PE in poor schools so they do better in tests so NCLB laws won't close these schools....

    so we narrow our kids learning, cut down and in some cases cut out music, PE, art and recess so they become better widgets.....I retired in 2004 and have put in two semesters since then...it's all connected.  I believe it in my heart.

    In the end, I want an administration that sees how connected the issues are and get us back to doing more than struggling to meet basic needs, teaching our kids that life is about taking tests and that the good things in life (the arts, playing, laughing) are NOT just things for others....


    Women's rights (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:36:10 PM EST
    was not my core issue either.  Now it is in the forefront, alongside with constitutional rights; rights of the accused; the economy; war in all its forms; educational loans etc. After Hillary's treatment by the MSM and the DNC, Women's Rights is almost top of my list.  I thought we had come much further.  We have not, except for Palin.    

    IMO, healthcare and the economy (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:55:44 PM EST
    ARE women's rights issues.

    Women's rights is my core issue, because: (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:40:17 AM EST
    "Women's Rights are Human Rights" and it doesn't get any bigger than that. Of course, that is also the title of a speech Hillary gave 13 years ago.

    LINK: video and transcript of Hillary's speech to the THE UNITED NATIONS FOURTH WORLD CONFERENCE ON WOMEN BEIJING, CHINA, SEPTEMBER 5, 1995. (Sorry for the caps, it was a cut and paste.)


    water under the bridge (5.00 / 0) (#13)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:07:08 PM EST
    the nominees are Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin.

    For those who care about advancing women's rights and protecting their reproductive freedom, Obama/Biden is the only vote that makes sense.


    i hope you are right (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:38:09 PM EST
    I'd love to see her run for President again. But for 2008, it's not going to happen and I'm not willing to sell the country down the river for four years because she didn't get the nomination. That's what my mother and grandmother would have called cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Four more years of Republicans in charge is the worst thing that could happen.


    You nailed that (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:00:46 PM EST
    All of my female friends, ardent and passionate Hillary supporters agree...NO ONE can afford another four years of the right wing.

    I think it remains to be seen... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Ardeth on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:49:03 PM EST
    ...how many women end up supporting Obama/Biden in the national election.  And I think the above should be clarified to "Some former Hillary supporters" since I sure as heck haven't made up my mind yet.  Perhaps if I'd been present for the in-person excitement and energy of convention I'd be on the Obama bandwagon now, but I wasn't.  Like many women, I simply haven't moved through all the stages of mourning the end of Hillary's campaign.

    The New York Times had a terrific piece on this matter yesterday.

    Me too (5.00 / 6) (#18)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:14:47 PM EST
    on the outraged part, not the man part.

    Me three. I'm still not going to vote any of (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:17:16 PM EST
    my rights away, but I'm trying to think of other ways to make them pay. The "get even" part of me really doesn't want to vote for them but I am going to vote on issues and try to forget who is on the ticket.

    Well, yeah, agreed... (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Ardeth on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:29:35 PM EST
    ...when I said I hadn't moved thru all the stages of mourning yet, I probably should have added that I'm stuck in the rage phase too.

    A plague on both your houses!


    Me four (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by Prabhata on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:35:53 PM EST
    I have 4 sisters who also supported Hillary.  They were not sure they would support McCain until he asked Palin to be the VP. For them it's a matter of trust. Obama does not inspire trust.

    Me five (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by parttime on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:53:00 AM EST
    I am not convinced for voting Obama/Biden either. As Hillary puts it, senator Obama only brings a speech from 2002. Well, maybe one more from 2008, but that's it :)

    that's in a republican ad (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:07:43 AM EST
    I saw it twice on tv tonight, put out by the RNC. Please don't bring Republican talking points here.

    Prabhata (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:07:30 PM EST
    Four comments in 24 hours for you expressing support for Mccain/Palin or opposition to the Democratic ticket.

    Good grief (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST
    Prabhata was talking about what other people would do.

    I haven't really made up my mind either. (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:19:19 PM EST
    Sometimes, I think I'll vote one way.  Other times, I think I'll vote the other way.  Other times, I think I'll skip the top of the ticket or vote for another party.  I'm in "very blue" California so I don't think my vote will matter that much one way or the other.    

    I'm angry but not outraged anymore.  I've supported plenty of candidates that haven't won before.

    I am outraged over the unequal treatment of women, not only in politics but in the workplace in general.  It makes me even sicker to see other women supporting inequality between men and women in the workplace -- like, for some reason, women deserve to be treated differently (either worse or better).  "What's good for the goose is good for the gander," like my mother always used to say.  ;-)

    Anyway, I get the feeling I'm one of those who won't decide until the last minute.  This election is fascinating in some aspects, but totally frustrating in others.      


    I think we all get there (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:04:27 PM EST
    on our own timeline..
    We don't need to be convinced.  We need to find our own path.  Women are introspective and well informed when it comes to the future.  We have to be....because we are the ones that often end up doing all the caretaking of our parents, spouse's parents, our children, even aunts and uncles when necessary.  We need a future that looks out for women and those we care for..

    And we will all do what we all thinks is best for that future.


    That's why I read speeches (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:26:00 PM EST
    I haven't watched a speech since I watched Ronald Reagan give a SOTU address. I thought it was wonderful. I felt good, proud of America, like waving the flag. Then I started thinking about what he had said ... and he hadn't said anything meaningful. He had pushed buttons without actually conferring information. That's when I realized that a good speaker could easily manipulate his audience to make it seem as if what they were saying was substantial, when it wasn't. Since then, I read speeches, I judge the words, not the way they are said. I will watch press conferences and debates, because it's important to see how people interact with others, but speeches are just about how effectively someone speaks, not what they have to say.

    that is very perceptive (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:41:10 PM EST
    I do know what you mean. With Obama, he has a good delivery.  He has a presence.  After, all I am left wiht is hopey and changey though.  I should read his speeches.  Maybe then I will find the meat.

    We were given hard copies of the speeches (none / 0) (#89)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:10:24 PM EST
    thursday in the press room at Invesco. I save them all.

    But sometimes... (none / 0) (#170)
    by syrupcore on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 05:49:20 PM EST
    The speeches differ from the delivery.  And there's something to be said for how a person changes a speech in real time to suit the moment or recover from a mistake. I feel like you sorta get a glimpse at the human in those moments in particular that you can't get from a script.

    And really, with Obama, the speech giving is a genuine part of the package. Sure, some people think that's the entire package but that's selling him a little short I reckon. That he may or may not inspire people to take action should be, I believe, part of the consideration.


    I didn't mean to imply all women (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:39:01 PM EST
    and I changed the wording slightly to reflect that.

    Thanks, Jeralyn. Much appreciated. (none / 0) (#110)
    by Ardeth on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:50:53 PM EST
    Palomino, you raise a GREAT point... (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:15:19 AM EST
    You said:

    I'm not a woman, so nobody has been lecturing me about how I should vote.

    Why aren't Hillary's male voters being actively pressured to vote for Obama?

    Probably, 7-9 MILLION MEN voted for Hillary. Have the MSM pundit class, and the blogosphere, assumed that ALL of them will just automatically vote for Obama?

    That's a stunning assumption, given that WILL BOWER (a dude) has been out there giving numerous TV interviews as a prime spokesMAN for PUMA and Just Say No Deal.



    The Media Creates The 'Angry Woman Hillary Voter' (none / 0) (#157)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:59:27 AM EST
    image. They revel in that kind of reductionist view.

    At the convention last week it seemed to me the emphasis was on EVERYONE uniting and there was much less emphasis on the gender of the Clinton supporters who were being asked for their support.


    Yes the MSM is flogging the meme of (none / 0) (#162)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    Hillary's angry women voters and ignoring her MALE voters. But it's more inexcusable that the fauxgressive blogosphere is equally guilty.

    Well, You Have Me At a Disadvantage There (none / 0) (#163)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:21:56 PM EST
    because with the exception of TL, I don't sample the political threads at other blogs. Just news and polling content sometimes.

    I learned during the primaries that even the news sites like the Washington Post and the NY Times are riddled in their comments blogs with crass, vile slurs on both sides from people reveling in their anonymity and craving a little attention.

    Not at all my cup of tea.


    Daring Grace, TL has repeatedly (none / 0) (#164)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:32:30 PM EST
    posted stories about how badly the fauxgressive blogosphere has treated women voters in general and Hillary in particular. TL is to be commended for that effort.

    So, you didn't have to go elsewhere to get that news.


    Hard Not to See The Accounts Here (none / 0) (#165)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:08:04 PM EST
    I did.

    My point was that I needed no on site experience at other sites. I caught a glimpse in the general internet sphere already. So hearing about them here--and having a previous experience at Daily Kos of a piling on intolerance of another kind, I wasn't too surprised.


    I was there. (none / 0) (#75)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:57:12 PM EST
    Perhaps if I'd been present for the in-person excitement and energy of convention I'd be on the Obama bandwagon now

    I'm not.


    OK, but (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:52:55 PM EST
    now Obama and Biden "are going to take it all the way to the finish line."  Yeah, right, we need two guys to do this?  

    According to the latest CNN poll, more men (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:16:03 PM EST
    like Palin (by about 5 percent) then do women. According to that poll, Palin doesn't help pull in women (it could even hurt a little) but does bring in more men, and solidifies the base.

    I don't think so... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by overprotective on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:41:47 PM EST
    I think most authors on Progressive blogs can see the larger narratives in things like this.

    But don't underestimate the role of mainstream progressive blogs as Progressive counterweight to  Drudge & talk radio.

    And in that sense, it makes an awful lot of sense to use the blogs strategically. To frame our debate. And they aren't usually great let alone perfect, but they at least offer SOMETHING to occupy mind-share alongside Drudge & Rush.

    I think dissent on progressive blogs is good. And I think they should also be a tool to hold our Dem leaders' feet to the fire. But I like to see that in journals or off to the side. Still heavily trafficked by posters but leaving the bulk of the main page for pro-liberal messaging the same way Drudge does.

    I think that's what a lot of people here miss when they criticize the usual cast of Dem blogs.

    Don't get me wrong, if I had a dime for paragraph of drivel written on progressive blogs, I'd probably be a republican.

    They're far from perfect, but the progressive blogosphere has proven valuable before. We've changed the national debate vis-a-vis stories that started on the blogosphere and trickled-up to the national media. It's not perfect, but it's better than nothing, and I think we'll get more sophisticated as we grow.


    It's early days on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Ardeth on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:02:24 PM EST
    To most voters she's an unknown quantity who has just been introduced into the mix.  I'll be much more interested in what the polls say after we see how she actually copes with her sudden elevation to the national/international stage.

    If she proves to be tough, smart, and sympathetic, I think she'll get votes from both women and men.  If she wilts in the spotlight or reveals herself as an incompetent idiot, then she quickly becomes McCain's Folly.

    The only voting block she seems to be pulling in right off are the evangelicals/ultra conservatives.  But that in itself is no doubt making the McCain campaign ecstatic.


    Polls on Palin (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by parttime on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:02:01 AM EST
    National polls on Palin doesn't mean much. What women think about her in solid democratic states like New York, California, etc.. does not make a difference. She probably appeals more to women in the battleground states and in small towns...

    it's bringing in the (none / 0) (#63)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:44:02 PM EST
    evangelicals and radical right. No surprise there. It's also bringing in their dollars to fight the Democratic ticket which is why the Dems should not be passive about this in my view.

    I agree with what they say (5.00 / 9) (#21)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:17:49 PM EST
    I agree completely with the Democratic position on women's rights. I disagree completely with the Republican position on women's rights. But I don't trust the Dems to actually follow through. They keep talking, but they don't seem to do much. Well, Bill Clinton did some things I appreciated, but since then Dems have had other priorities. I just want them to show me that they are going to live up to their promises. This primary hurt me. I know, as a woman,  I should just "suck up" and deal with it. Well... I've been doing that for a long time, and I'm not going to play that game anymore. Nobody tells minorities to just suck up and tolerate racism, nor should they. It's time that our leaders stopped simply shrugging when people ask them about sexism and actually start standing up and saying "No... this is not acceptable". And the only way they will ever do it is if they figure out that it is costing more to ignore the problem than it is to deal with it.

    I hope the closeness of this election so far (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:20:25 PM EST
    will open their eyes a little bit. I feel like you do. What a disaster this turned out to be and now the Palin pick brings so much of it back. Not the issues but the sexism.

    Look how long it took to get rid of (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:25:46 PM EST
    sexual harrassment in the workplace.  

    Change comes gradually.  That's why I'm not holding my breath.  


    Where I worked, it was still there. It is one of (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:31:48 PM EST
    the reasons I left the best job I'll ever have money-wise three years ago. I could have made a lot of money off them but I was too chicken and too aware of how they respond if you speak up.

    Things have gone backwards, Grace (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:33:45 PM EST
    The sexism I've seen in the last year I've never seen before. It's the WOMEN, and their treatment of each other, that has been one of the biggest shockers.

    New generation (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by parttime on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:09:19 AM EST
    New generation women are taking their rights for granted. That's why they are laxidaisical about Obama camp's behavior. It's not our job to fight for their rights, only they can do that. I'm feeling they will learn through their mistakes and nothing much we can do about it.. That's one of the reasons why I don't feel guilty about not voting for Obama this year.

    you are limited to four comments a day since (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:02:21 AM EST
    you are not voting for the Dem. ticket.

    Jeralyn, please let me know where I can find (none / 0) (#169)
    by bridget on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:59:49 PM EST
    out about the new blog rules

    I did read "Supporting the Democratic Ticket" but there may have been updates in the meantime I don't know about yet. I didn't know about the above mentioned blog rule either. Just came back on the net last night.

    In case Jeralyn didn't see my post, please fellow bloggers, point me to the new blog rules. I would appreciate it :)


    Things will move a lot faster... (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:33:54 PM EST
    ...if people are actually fighting for it instead of shrugging and telling women to just deal with it.  I was shocked when Pelosi did that. It's not "cool" to fight sexism. I don't understand why, but women who fight sexism are not "team players".

    Pelosi's attitude is the norm: "I'm a victim of sexism myself all the time, but I just think it goes with the territory. I myself find that I get a tremendous upside being a woman, and I don't spend a lot of time worrying about sexist remarks that people make."


    Nor does she think much... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:39:58 PM EST
    about the sexism coming from her own mouth.

    Problem Is... (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:40:40 PM EST
    I just want them to show me that they are going to live up to their promises.

    ...the Democrats (and by that, I mean Obama) have made more promises than they can keep. Well, they will keep them, but they just won't act on them.

    Why? Some of them are just so vague that they will backtrack on them, while others are too costly or difficult to achieve that Congress will be locked in disagreements that end up with compromises.

    I just hate that they make compromises so easily. They made compromises on two core issues I care about: health care (SCHIP) and privacy rights (FISA). I expect that with a Dem. majority, a hypothetical Pres. Obama will increasingly be compromising legislation to stay in the center, or worse, right-of-center as he launches his re-election bid. A Dem-led Congress and a McCain administration will be a repeat of the last two years.

    So? It's a lose-lose for everybody.


    "Democratic position on women" (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by befuddledvoter on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:44:40 PM EST
    What is the Chinese proverb?  "To really know is to do," or some such thing.  I am stuck on that.  There is a disconnect between the written Dem policy on women and their actual treatment of the best female candidate they have ever had.  Hmmm!

    Why are D-women bullied for a loyalty Vote oath? (5.00 / 14) (#27)
    by Ellie on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:22:31 PM EST
    ... but not men, who Dems openly and carefully court by discussing at length candidate possibilities that will please them? Let's get THIS guy so men in this region won't vote Repug, or Hey, Guys, you said you liked the Pugs on security so how about a combat vet?

    And no one seems to bat an eyelash about the possibility of men voting however they choose. (Dang, another choice men get to make unpestered that I don't.)

    Part of the sexism, misogyny and general contempt for women that Dem leadership -- and the fauxgressive nincompoops in blogs and media -- has been this persistent insistence that women explicitly disavow, apologize even, for considering voting for McCain/Palin.

    Yet it's been a given in this election and past ones that the utmost respect and latitude be given to male voters that their potential choice, even for a Repug ticket, enter into selecting, eg, the choice for Veep on the ticket.

    When a vote is a vote and no one has to tell it in advance, never mind freakin' justify it or apologize for THINKING about it this way or that, the gender-based bullying of women to swear fealty to the Dems, who continue treating the female voter like cr@p, has been another dismal chapter in Dems Gone Wild '08.

    I honestly thought the party had maxed out their contempt for women but Dems and fauxgressives keep outdoing themselves.

    Why they're belligerently demanding to know how women will be voting is mystifying and unnecessarily self-defeating. The new voters and unsigned black voters rendered the bitter knitter demographic as irrelevant, unneeded and don't let the door hitcha baybeeee.

    Maybe Dems should focus on loyalty oaths from Dem men and the youthful hoards or, better yet, a vow to unite to stop the egregious bigotry being committed against women and an oath to stop it in its tracks upon encountering it.

    Why is it OK to bully women to vote Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:17:01 AM EST
    The only PRECEDENT I see for this is AAs being strongly encouraged to vote for Obama. In that case AAs were being asked, by AAs, to vote for an AA. In other words, people from within a demographic group were asking other people within that same demographic group to vote for somebody who is also from that demographic group. This set of circumstances has internal logic, whether or not you think it's a good practice.

    It's been a DIFFERENT story for women. Since the primaries began, we have had women being bulled by a lot of blogger boyz (and some gals) to vote for a candidate other than the woman.

    There is NO internal logic, or rough justice to this latter scenario. One demographic group (especially a dominant one) has NO RIGHT to tell another demographic group (especially an historically subordinate group) what the hell to do with their vote.

    It is NOT OK with me at all.



    I think what struck me in those 2 interviews (5.00 / 10) (#53)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:40:05 PM EST
    is the irony of hearing their praise for Hillary, and their appreciation for her having elevated the so-called women's issues to the forefront (I guess sexism will do that, huh?), and for making sure issues important to women were in the platform, and then realizing that in the end, it's two men who are going to carry it over the finish line.

    I winced when I realized how "thanks for your help, hon, now let us men finish the job" it sounded.

    It was just sad.  Just so sad.

    And frankly, it rang more than a little hollow.  I don't discount Joe Biden's work on women's issues, but I can't get Anita Hill out of my head.  I hear what these women say Obama will do, but the things Obama has said that reflect a general bias against women rotate through my head like a play list of tunes on my iPod.  It's ugly stuff and I wish I didn't still hear it, but it makes me leery of the solidity of Obama's commitment to things that are important to me and millions of other women.

    This is not meant to re-hash what cannot be changed, or be an anti-Obama/Biden rant.

    It just saddens me to hear these two strong, feminists once again cede over to men what should have been.

    Will McCain be worse?  I'm pretty sure he will.  Palin on the ticket doesn't change McCain, doesn't change the GOP agenda, so there is no comfort there, even if their VP nominee is female.


    Why are these women in leadership roles anyway? (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by bridget on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:50:40 AM EST
    It is sad to hear women's rights leaders like the above talk how Hillary made history but now the two men will "carry it over the finish line." And they are just fine with it. Guess these people are  satisfied with their "important" roles in society.  It's annoying to hear this kind of talk again and again.Stop playing second fiddle, for heaven's sake.

    btw. These are the kind of women who will receive the approval of the author who recently wrote the open letter to Hillary supporters here. Women who refuse to look back at all the sexism and bias they witnessed against Hillary and all women during this long primary season. Women who remain in denial instead of leading the good fight.

    "Sad" just can't express this situation America's women still find themselves. And With leadership like this they won't go anywere soon. Certainly not in the White House. No matter how competent, no matter how smart ... woman had to play second fiddle to the man who was picked by the party to be Dem candidate for Pres. The first woman in the oval office will most likely be a Republican President. I always thought that anyway.

    btw. I am also very sad to read when even professional women say that women's rights are not on the top of their list. Well, don't expect to EVER get a presidential foot into the White House with that kind of attitude.

    The wishful thinking re Obama/Biden and women's rights really is depressing. How much more in denial can people be?

    And Since we are talking about the women's vote for Obama/Biden? Anyone who has war on the top of the list be afraid, be v. afraid. Obama wants to start another "illegal" war in Afghanistan in order to look tough. Biden loves the anti-war speech but there is no action. Ever. Oh, and I will never get out of my head Joe Biden practically jumping up and down with excitement over all the unity in the village when Lebanon was attacked last year. Terrible. Too much unity. Lots of suffering and many lives lost.


    Men Can Be Feminists Too (none / 0) (#158)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:12:15 AM EST
    and male politicians have advanced and promoted the agenda of womens' rights. If they hadn't we wouldn't have the ones we now possess.

    I would love to see a woman elected president soon, but getting the current Dem ticket in office is in no way a defeat for women simply because they are both uterus-free.

    I wouldn't necessarily refer to Obama or Biden as feminists, but their records on womens' issues are fine with me and are light years more supportive of women than McCain-Palin.


    The current ticket is a 100% defeat for women (none / 0) (#168)
    by bridget on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:35:22 PM EST
    "If they hadn't we wouldn't have the ones we now possess."

    Oh Please. Every single right women ever got they had to fight for themselves and suffer for it. Starting with the voting rights. Study history.

    CHANGE doesn't ever happen from within the government. NEVER. No matter what it is. Civil rights, PEACE. .. It always comes from outside the government. It comes when people rise up in protest.

    Example one: War and Peace

    The Vietnam War only came to an end because the protests outside the White House freaked out Nixon. Among other reasons, of course. Ergo ...

    As of right now, the anti-war movement is dead. DEAD. Don't expect the wars to end until people demand peace. Dwight Eisenhower even knew that one.

    I bet you have no idea why the Berlin Wall came down on November 9, 1989. It was because the East German people had enough ... and the government crumbled like a house of cards starting a chain reaction in the East Block. It absolutely stunned the US government.

    Right now Both parties are completely d'accord re every single war, already started, still upcoming, or done with. Incl. a renewal of the Cold War w. Russia. And as always the media supports. So It's all up to the American people. Let's hope they wake up from their lemming like slumber.

    Example two: Abortion rights
    Do I even have to discuss the history here?
    I still remember when hundreds of well-known mostly French women, i.e. very famous actresses, authors, etc.  publicly admitted that they had abortions.

    It was action out of desperation. They all had their pictures published on the magazine cover. In France That action alone gave women the right over their own bodies. It was an extremely courageous action then. Google. Men had nothing to do with it. Nothing.

    re the above and more:
    Read up on the life experiences of one of the most oustanding authors and journalists of our time: 88year old Benoite Groult. She will thrill you with her life lessons.


    The best way to ensure that Hillary holdouts (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:55:46 PM EST
    vote for our Democratic candidate is to guarantee Hillary is rewarded with a major career advancement after her historic run for President.  She's brought together Democrats in the same way Obama did, by reaching out and speaking to our issues, and promising to work toward solutions that our country desperately needs.  Hillary's a competent politician from a politically important state, and we need her skills and drive in a leadership role in the Democratic Party.  She, and we, have an opportunity to utilize the momentum she generated in the primary to further our issues.  Now that there's no chance of her being on the ticket, Obama supporters will be comfortable promoting Hillary since she's on the same team as Obama, not pitted against him.  

    If we, the rank and file Democrats, demand that the Dem party fire Sen Harry Reid and promote Hillary to Senate Majority Leader, we get two birds with one stone. I've floated this idea here before and been shot down for it, but it's not unheard of for a party to promote a Senator to SL over more senior members.  If Hillary supporters use their clout to demand this of the party, all of us benefit.  We get a powerful Senator working on the issues we care about, Hillary gets a career boost from her enormous efforts this past year, and Obama supporters get two powerful Dems with pretty much shared platforms working on our issues in Congress.  

    This move would create cooperation from the Obama & Hillary Dems, giving Hill holdouts a real reason to vote Democratic.  Obama's win would mean a huge advancement in Hillary's career.  We'll finally have the shared goal of promoting them both, with party alignment, even if unity per se never happens.  Not only will we win the GE, but we'll have put forth a mandate from the people to work on our shared issues.

    What if Senator Obama (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:01:24 PM EST
    just runs for president and leaves Senator Clinton the heck out of it?

    Done (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by lentinel on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:30:08 PM EST
    I think Obama already left Senator Clinton out of it.

    He already has. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:31:01 PM EST
    I'm the one that wants to fire Give 'em hell Harry and replace him with the woman who's finally shown her mettle.  He and the other old-school Dems have not been taking care of our issues.  From Hillary's record in the Senate, she hadn't been either.  But after this historic run, she's likely to act and vote differently.  One of the reasons I chose Obama over Hillary is the money and power that's behind the Clintons.  I saw how she because the NY senator and didn't think she'd be able to buck the system and still be successful.  Now she's made changes - this spring she finally stepped up and forged a new path.  Now, before she gets sucked back into business as usual in Congress, I want her supporters, half of our Dem party, demand she be afforded a position where she can walk the talk that we heard from her at the end of the primary race.  This isn't about Obama doing something.  He can't offer this to her.  It's about our party, and about us.  We have the political clout, right now, this year to demand that such a strong candidate lead the Senate on the issues she said she stands for.  This is one of those opportunities where the people have the chance to lead.  It's in our best interests to promote her, and our party is more likely to win with her leadership contingent on Obama winning.  

    Anyone else with me on this?


    My understanding (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:19:49 PM EST
    is that this wouldn't be a promotion. Senate ML involves a lot of picayune grunt work. She's better off where she has more elbow room.

    And frankly, she's probably better off not owing anyone anything.


    True (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:10:53 AM EST
    In a lot of ways it's a crap job.  The senate has rules but no rules committee to set limits on amendments for a bill or time to consider a bill.  everything must be done by unanimous consent which is why it is so easy for one senator to hold up a bill indefinitely (called "Holds").  You need 60 votes (or it could be 2/3) to override a hold.  Takes forever to do that and is a pain in the arse.  Better to avoid which means constant negotiations.

    There's a reason every senate majority leader until LBJ was defeated the next time they were up for re-election - they had a tedious job that kept them from keeping the home fires burning.  It's gotten better because of some rules changes (like how the filibuster works now).  But it's still difficult.  Especially if you don't have a lot of buy in from your own party which Hillary wouldn't have if she were forced upon the caucus.


    The SML office does the grunt work. (none / 0) (#99)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:36:00 PM EST
    The Majority Leader directs the agenda, and either blocks or delivers results.  It's a powerful position and she'd be a key player in changing the direction our country has been on to one that more closely reflects our Democratic goals and values.

    Forget it. That job's going to (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:41:26 PM EST
    Chris Dodd, who lost out to Reid in 2006, and who probably earned enough cred in his support for Obama to get it in 2008.

    He would be miles better than Reid.

    I know you think you are helping in your passionate pleas to get Hillary a super-duper consolation prize for losing out to the boyz, but you're just making it worse.


    Finding a way to use Hillary's (none / 0) (#111)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:52:07 PM EST
    change of heart this spring to our benefit, and solving the dilemma of a big chunk of our party's voters not voting top of ticket, or worse, voting for McSame is not a consolation prize, it's a viable solution.  

    Why do you say I'm making it worse by suggesting this?  Do you think I'm suggesting promoting Hillary only in order to get people to vote Obama?  I don't want Hillary as Prez, or even VP, but I certainly want her in a powerful position working on our issues.  


    Well the VP ship has sailed but you may (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:56:57 PM EST
    regret that later based on the most recent poll. Obama missed a chance to heal the party and he may have missed a chance to win the election.

    Most people seem to like Biden but I can't see them standing for hours in the rain to vote for him. They would have if Hillary was on the ticket. Why risk losing potential voters?


    You see making Hillary the VP as a way to (none / 0) (#141)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:31:34 AM EST
    heal the party.  But I see it as the same thing the GOP just did - stick on a woman to try to capture some extra percentage of votes.

    Granted, Hillary would have brought many more votes.  But she would also have re-energized the conservative base, which is what they wanted all along when they encouraged Republicans to vote for Hillary in the Dem primary.  And Bill's shenanigans would be in our faces over and over and over again, for the next four to eight years of Democratic rule.  Our opponents would use Clinton hatred to energize conservatives against every one of our policies, our appointments, our direction and our legislation decisions.

    I don't want Hillary in the White House.  I don't want Bill anywhere near the White House.  Bill Clinton is why the Repubs wrested power from our party, and they will continue to bring failure to the Democratic party and our issues because of Bill's ongoing dishonest actions and political manipulations.

    Obama didn't miss a chance to heal the party.  He simply stayed true to his original direction, which is also why I voted for him over Hillary.  That direction doesn't include teaming up with the Clintons in the WH.


    Plenty of people suggest giving Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:58:26 PM EST
    some position or another. But most of them don't make sense because she's either not right for it (Supreme Court) or could never get it (Majority Leader). Clinton isn't going to be anything other then the Senator from New York.

    Oh, yes (none / 0) (#153)
    by suki on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:52:30 AM EST
    I can just imagine how 'comfortable' Obama supporters would be with demands that Hillary be majority leader.
    I tell you what - why don't you go to other sites and 'float' that one and come back and tell us how it goes over.
    Be sure to put on your fire retardant gear first.

    Women aren't a monolithic voting block. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:57:35 PM EST
    What McCain has done is guarantee passionate turnout among the minority of Republican women voters.  But it's a large minority.

    By passionately promoting women's issues, Obama/Biden can counteract that.   We have more women on our side, so we just have to make them care enough to get to the polls.   This isn't about preference; it's about turnout.

    Ermm... (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Don in Seattle on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:36:58 PM EST
    "Why do women, including some major former Hillary Clinton supporters, support Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden?"

    Huh? I thought Hillary Clinton herself supported Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Did I miss something? Who is she supporting now?

    Hillary does support Obama (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:50:30 PM EST
    So do I and many of her supporters. Not all of her supporters do.

    You really should amend your title (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:10:41 AM EST
    Not all women support Obama-Biden by a long shot.

    McCain (none / 0) (#149)
    by Ellis on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:42:30 AM EST
    The headline doesn't say or imply that ALL women support Obama-Biden. Only the ones who care about women's issues support them.

    Dr Molly, if you plan to vote for McCain, and if he wins, it would be nice if he won by a single vote cast in your state and your state's electoral votes gave him the majority in the Electoral College. Wouldn't you be proud then?

    As for Spillar, I thought she was quite articulate, but I really wish people who get straight on the difference between historical and historic. I can't begin to count the number of people who have commented on the "historical" nature of Obama's nomination. Maybe they misspoke and really meant hysterical.


    You don't know who I plan to vote for (none / 0) (#151)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:13:11 AM EST
    so kindly put a sock in it on that topic.

    I interpreted the title differently, and it seems inaccurate to me, but ain't no big deal.

    Also, 'women's issues' include a lot more than equal pay and reproductive rights - hearing that from lots of women I know.


    Your vote and women's issues (none / 0) (#155)
    by Ellis on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM EST
    I didn't say I knew who you are going to vote for -- that's what the word "if" is for.

    Also, 'women's issues' include a lot more than equal pay and reproductive rights - hearing that from lots of women I know.

    If you have some information on "women's issues" that the Republican ticket is better on than the Democratic ticket, I'd be interested in hearing what they are.


    If I had one wish.. (4.00 / 3) (#37)
    by overprotective on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:32:27 PM EST
    ..it would be to share the understanding with all Hillary supporters that they can be upset, but that it's simply unwise to take presidential politics so personally.

    Presidential politics is rough. They all know this. They know it well. ESPECIALLY the Clintons.

    I understand the thinking, and it IS logical: Hillary is the most successful woman in the country. Obama condoned sexist treatment of Hillary and, by implication, he condoned the sexist treatment of ALL ambitious, successful women.

    That is, Hillary is representative of this vast often-feminist, often-ambitious, often-successful class of women.

    But Hillary is playing in the major leagues. The biggest political game in all of human history. The desire of climbing that last, giant step requires a trade-off of mammoth proportions. All candidates make that trade-off. Remember James Carville saying "When your opponent is drowning, you throw them an f'in anvil."

    Hard ball.

    There was sexism towards Hillary in this campaign. The Media, Blogs, Obama supporters. It was offensive. But it would have been political malpractice for Obama to ordain himself as referee and come between the Clinton campaign and, say, Olberman. Or Markos. Or Russert.

    And I wouldn't be surprised if some officers in the Obama campaign had leaked or encouraged inflammatory remarks. Often these guys are passionate and try to do what they think is best.

    By the way, there was also racism towards Barack in this campaign. No doubt about it. The Clinton campaign would benefit by Obama transforming into the so-called "black candidate." And you can bet they knew that.

    And I also wouldn't be surprised if some offices in the Clinton camp had leaked or encouraged inflammatory remarks.

    Hard Ball.

    I think Barack Obama respects Hillary Clinton. And I think Barack Obama really wants to be President.

    And yes, I think Hillary respects Barack, and I think Hillary really wants to be President.

    It's unfair to Hillary to take this personally. You're victimizing her when she herself entered the fray knowing the full frontal assault.

    If Obama had never entered this campaign, Hillary would've received the exact same treatment. Does anyone think otherwise?

    And if you stop thinking that Obama is horrible because he didn't treat Hillary properly, and you start giving him a fair shot, then hey, make your choice based on what you really hear.

    But right now, if you took the primary personally and you're waiting for Barack to "sell you," you should just stop waiting. It's not going to happen. Not until you open your mind.

    Oh lord, (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM EST
    I feel like I'm stuck in a room with Otto, and he's trying to help me by eating K-K-Ken's goldfish. Avoid the green ones, bb.

    Hillary is not the most successful woman in (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:36:20 PM EST
    the country.

    You're thinking Oprah? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:49:07 PM EST
    Yeah, and Pelosi. (none / 0) (#69)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:51:19 PM EST
    Pelosi? Because a bunch of good old boys (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:53:41 PM EST
    chose her as speaker? She isn't very effective and to be considered the most successful woman in the country, shouldn't you have to do something?

    And Melinda Gates? (none / 0) (#70)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:52:29 PM EST
    I think that depends on how effectively (none / 0) (#81)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:01:21 PM EST
    she spreads that money around. But yeah, you're right, she certainly is up there.

    Madonna doesn't live here anymore. (none / 0) (#79)
    by Lysis on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:59:55 PM EST
    Hillary's the most important woman in the country with the largest following of committed supporters - to her agenda, not just to her persona.  (Though they like that too.)

    She's the automatic front-runner for our next nominee, whether that's in 2012 or 2016.


    She was the automatic front runner (none / 0) (#84)
    by tigercourse on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:03:14 PM EST
    this year and look where that got her. I'll bet you the party finds away to keep her out in 2016 certainly, and possibly 2012.

    That Depends (none / 0) (#160)
    by daring grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM EST
    on how one measures success.

    Who is mad at Obama? (5.00 / 10) (#91)
    by Grace on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:10:46 PM EST
    I'm not mad at him as much as I'm mad at the DNC!!  I'm mad at Pelosi!  I'm mad at Dean!  I'm mad at the members of the DNC who made all the stupid comments before the final primary!  I'm mad at how they played with their own party rules to get the outcome they wanted instead of letting it go to a floor fight!  Tell me -- why shouldn't I be mad at them?  If any party should know the meaning of "Count All The Votes" it should be the Democrats!  

    And why shouldn't I expect Barack to "sell me"?  I want him to ask for my vote.  I don't think there is anything wrong with that.  Other candidates have asked for my vote, including Hillary.  

    I don't consider this taking this personally as much as I consider it valuing my vote.  I value my vote and I expect the Party and the candidates to respect that!  


    Obama has (none / 0) (#156)
    by Ellis on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:06:59 AM EST
    asked for your vote. And Hillary has asked you to give it to him.

    It's not my place to ask, but I do hope you will give him your vote.


    Ok (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:38:19 PM EST
    I'll stop waiting.

    Well thanks for Yet Another Lecture, but (5.00 / 7) (#106)
    by Ardeth on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:45:50 PM EST
    it's not really about Hillary.

    It's about us, our sisters, our daughters, and our granddaughters.  It's about all the women in our country, and even more so, in the many nations in this world where people are even more unenlightened about the equality of the sexes.

    It's about equal pay for equal work.  It's about respect for our hard work, our brains, our many accomplishments.  It's about the jobs and the promotions that have gone to some guy less qualified than ourselves.  It's about women who have been fired from the jobs so some Ole Boys' Network up-and-comer male could be given her position.  It's about the common courtesy that would allow us to be judged on our merits, not on our bust size, the higher pitch (read:shrillness) of our voices, or the regularity of our facial features.  

    And it's about some of the even more subtle and insidious messages that are ingrained in our culture: e.g., the research that has show that when a man and a woman make the exact same arguments in front of a group, using the exact same body language and intonation, the man's points will be received more positively than the woman's, both by the males AND the females in the audience.

    It's about some of us standing up and say, "Enough.  I've had it.  The world may take a whole lot longer to change, but this is it for me.  This is where I draw the line and make my stand.  And if you don't like it -- tough."

    When the percentage of female heads of state, Congressional representatives, cabinet members, Supreme Court members, corporate presidents, non profit presidents, artists, scientists, industry leaders, university professors, etc. etc. etc. in all areas of human endeavor reaches the 50 percent mark, then my mind, and my heart, will be open.


    When the percentage of female heads of state, (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by denise on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:01:20 AM EST
    Congressional representatives, cabinet members, Supreme Court members, corporate presidents, non profit presidents, artists, scientists, industry leaders, university professors, etc. etc. etc. in all areas of human endeavor reaches the 50 percent mark, the world will be a much better place. I truly believe that.

    Some thoughts... (none / 0) (#159)
    by Ellis on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:14:45 AM EST
    ...on some things you wrote that interested me.

    And it's about some of the even more subtle and insidious messages that are ingrained in our culture: e.g., the research that has show that when a man and a woman make the exact same arguments in front of a group, using the exact same body language and intonation, the man's points will be received more positively than the woman's, both by the males AND the females in the audience.

    Similar research has been done on tall/short, fat/skinny, bald/hirsute, etc.

    The results always seem to be the same. People don't make decisions based on merit. Do the same test on the same person, but in the second run remove the person's front teeth.

    There is no question that the world and this society are riddled with sexism as well as every other kind of bias imaginable. And there is every reason for every thinking person to be outraged by the situation. But there is no chance that the situation is going to "fixed" overnight (i.e., by election day), or next year, or even in ten years.

    It's about some of us standing up and say, "Enough.  I've had it.  The world may take a whole lot longer to change, but this is it for me.  This is where I draw the line and make my stand.  And if you don't like it -- tough."

    You should stand up and say, "Enough!" I just can't figure out what is to be gained by insisting on something that you know is never going to happen -- by that I'm referring to the time frame, not the ultimate goal. Most of the people who worked tirelessly to get the vote for women in the 19th century never got to see the day when women could vote, or the day the first woman was elected senator. But they continued to fight.  The fight will go on, with or without you, but it would be so much better with you.

    When the percentage of female heads of state, Congressional representatives, cabinet members, Supreme Court members, corporate presidents, non profit presidents, artists, scientists, industry leaders, university professors, etc. etc. etc. in all areas of human endeavor reaches the 50 percent mark, then my mind, and my heart, will be open.

    A small point of practicality. When any woman who is as qualified as her male counterpart has an equal chance to achieve a position, the battle will have been won. Percentages alone could be misleading. Today, there are more females in law schools than males. As a male, should I be upset about that? No way. The same is true of general female enrollment in college. If that trend continues, women will fill more and more of best jobs.

    One problem is that many women are sexist as well. Since there are more female than male voters, women should be able to equalize the numbers there more easily than in other areas. Is the problem that fewer women run for office? If so, then it makes sense to have fewer women hold office. Or is it that people (including women) are less likely to vote for women? It's probably both. I know that I have two female senators, a female governor, and a female state representative. Over the last twenty years, I've voted for a lot more women than men for major state and national offices and most of them have won. Progress is being made.  

    I'm going to die before I get the world I want. That's a simple, undeniable fact. But I can't imagine I'll feel better the day I die if somewhere along the way I said, "Enough. I quit."

    I apologize if you think this was a lecture.


    Slight misreading (none / 0) (#167)
    by Ardeth on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:08:41 PM EST
    Thanks for your thoughtful response.

    You are misinterpreting something I stated, though.  I am not by any means saying, "I quit," when I say, "Enough.  That's it.  This is where I make my stand."  On the contrary.  

    What I'm saying is that from now on ALL my energy goes into fighting for equality for women.


    I'm glad to hear that, but please... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Ellis on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:24:17 AM EST
    ...take a little time out to eat and recreate.

    I understand what you're saying and I don't blame you at all.

    I sincerely hope you'll live to see a world closer to your ideal, than I have any hope of seeing relative to my ideal. (Note: I never expected an ideal world; one that is significantly more just would have been fine.)

    At this point, the only thing that seems to matter to me is wresting power from the Republicans. That's a necessary first step; of course it's not sufficient. However, I no longer think we have the luxury of waiting for future administrations to begin repairing the damage Republicans have done.

    I don't think we've "survived" George Bush. I think this is demonstrably worse country now than it was when he took office and our ability to turn things around diminishes with the passage of time.

    Good luck to you.


    And I'll be more clear (5.00 / 6) (#107)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:47:19 PM EST
    Clinton asked her supporters what was more important to them, herself, Hillary Clinton, or making the lives of Americans better??

    All Obama had to do was ask his supporters a similiar question, what was more important to them, defeating Clinton or making the lives of Americans better?

    Because he is unable to do that, he sends a message to me that the people motivated by Clinton hatred mean more to him than I do.

    This has nothing to do with the primary.  The primary is over.

    Him selling himself to me would have been easy.  What I think is important is perfectly reasonable.  He didn't have to make her VP, he didn't have to tell Olbermann off.  He didn't have to lose face.  All he had to do was challenge his supporters to be better dems as Clinton challenged hers.

    He totally failed in that regard.

    But, yes.  What are the choices now?


    You still don't understand why people voted for (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:00:48 AM EST
    Obama.  It's not about a rock star.  It's about us.  I'm on Obama lists where the participants actively challenge each other to not attack McCain, to not promote the politics of divisiveness, where people call out others on their sexism and even point out and request other Obama supporters not use ageism against McCain!  There are always going to be people who don't cooperate and the blogs and mailing lists exacerbate people's meanness and spitefulness.  But why do Hillary supporters continue to ascribe what goes on in politics to Obama?  

    Sure, he has to sell himself to you.  But he's already challenged his supporters to be better Dems.  Obama has huge numbers of supporters because he called on us to make the changes we need.  He did what Hillary should have done from the start.  He made this election about us, not him.  Although his supporters claim the division is mostly Hillary's fault, now he has to find a way to reach people who are furious with him.  I don't envy him that task.


    What has he done (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:14:06 AM EST
    To challenge his supporters about anything?

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:23:14 AM EST
    Because if I had one wish, it would be to ask why women have to be better than politics?

    Women are taking it too personally?  We shouldn't want to be sold?  Funny, then we must be the only group in the universe that's not allowed to push for our issues.

    Frankly, over the last two cycles our presidential candidates have gone out of their way to "sell" themselves to men.  There is a reason John Kerry was promoted so heavily and 2004 turned into a referendum on military experience with both candidates trying to "out-man" the other so to speak.  That was because most of the targeted demos were men.

    Well, now the targets are women.  But yet we shouldn't expect the same treatment?  I mean Kerry was walking around looking like Elmer Fudd in 2004 in an attempt to sell himself to voters.  (And let's not even think about GWB and his codpiece.)

    If Obama wants the support of certain types of voters, he has to ask for it.  It's odd to me that his campaign has no problem doing it with evangelicals but are refusing to do it for us.  


    I've just really, REALLY, had my fill (4.91 / 11) (#88)
    by Anne on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:08:21 PM EST
    of being told it's okay for me to be upset - are you sure you don't want to give me permission to "have a good cry?"  If I could offer you some advice, it would be to stop assuming this is all about emotion, and most particularly stop thinking that if you say you understand, we will just nod our heads, sniff away the last of our tears, and with a few deep breaths, will be able to get on board.  Because that's not it at all.

    Whether you realize it or not, that attitude is just demeaning to a lot of people of both genders - because men also voted for Clinton; she didn't get 18 million votes just from women.

    No one who has not felt the sting of sexism, who has not been overlooked, passed over, made to work harder for less pay, been ogled and snickered at, treated like a maid or a servant, had her opinions and ideas laughed at or trivialized has no right to tell anyone not to take sexism personally.  It's not taking it personally that allows it to continue.

    It is not victimizing someone to be able to see and acknowledge that she was subject to sexist treatment - from all quarters.  Racism was off the table, verboten, but sexism?  It was hardy-har-har time on the networks, on the blogs and even from the candidates.  People treated Hillary like she was a joke.

    Well, not funny.  Barack Obama has no idea how many millions of votes he could have earned had he only, just once, taken someone in the media to task for their blatant sexism, and how much more trust and credibility he would now have on issues that matter to women.

    It's about trust.  Trust has to be earned.

    And yes, Obama does have to "sell" me - and no, it isn't my mind that needs opening.


    Standing O!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by echinopsia on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:15:45 PM EST
    More victimization... (3.50 / 2) (#105)
    by overprotective on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:44:49 PM EST
    I'm a young woman. There's a lot I haven't experienced yet. Sexism isn't on that list. It's not a club exclusive to those born before 1975.

    You're nit-picking. Deflecting. You're playing the victim because I expressed my agreement with being upset at what happened.

    This is Obama's original sin to so many women like yourself. He didn't referee every low blow laid on Hillary Clinton so therefore he condoned it and he must pay.

    And do you really believe there wasn't racism in this campaign directed at Barack?


    Nit-picking? Deflecting? (5.00 / 6) (#116)
    by Anne on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:04:51 AM EST
    No.  Responding to what you wrote, to your tone, to your suggestions.

    Along with quite a few other people, apparently.

    I have two daughters - 25 and 22 - they get it, and it's dismaying that you don't.


    Too funny! (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Grace on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:50:53 AM EST
    Anne isn't playing the victim.  You are.  

    You've adopted a condescending attitude towards those who disagree with you and you call it "nit picking, deflecting" because you can't find anything meaningful in your empathy bag of tricks to counter with.  Therefore, you call them "victims" while it is you that is truly a victim because you aren't getting what you want either.  

    If I had one wish, it would be to share the understanding with all Barack supporters that they can be upset about voters who won't commit, but that it's simply unwise to take presidential politics so personally.  Get it?    



    How can we not take the sexism personally? (4.83 / 6) (#41)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:35:24 PM EST
    We have lived it. There are other reasons not to vote for McCain but trying to convince me not to be mad because politics is the big leagues isn't one of them.

    It's not really about Obama or Clinton (4.80 / 5) (#65)
    by dianem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:44:33 PM EST
    The argument seems to be that even if I don't really believe that Obama is the best candidate, I should vote Dem because they are better for women. This has nothing to do with blaming Obama for the sexism or expecting him to have opposed the sexism. I don't like Obama for other reasons.

    It's not really about Clinton, either. She is part of the problem, really. She's one of the many powerful women who believe that it's best to just ignore sexism in the hope that it will go away, or to try to joke it off. The argument here seems to be "vote Dem because they're better on women's rights". My point is that they talk big, but they don't seem to make women's rights a very big priority when the talking is over. They don't even care enough to stand up to blatant sexism in the media or to oppose right wing justices who will take away rights from women, how can I trust them to take more subtle action?


    Hilary only ignored sexism (5.00 / 6) (#74)
    by oldpro on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:56:13 PM EST
    when it was directed against HER...in this campaign.  She had no other choice given the circumstances.  But the Democratic Party and Howard Dean DID have a choice.

    And they made it.

    Now I will make mine.

    You are right to nevermind what they say...watch what they do.

    On pay equity, google Obama and McCain.  You will to sorry to learn that it is Obama who pays his female staff less than his male staff...not McCain.


    Gee, didn't we discuss this at TL (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:09:47 AM EST
    and come to the conclusion that the article was comparing apples and oranges?  There's no way to compare staff salaries across the campaigns unless you know which people work in what jobs, and if men and women in the same job are paid differently.

    If you have any follow-up info to that possibly false accusation of unfair pay, let's see it.  Otherwise you're just repeating untruths that are designed to paint our candidate as unfair to women.


    Don't know how this will play out (none / 0) (#150)
    by cmugirl on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:55:03 AM EST
    Here is the data for Obama's Senate staff from 10/01/07 through 3/31/08 (you can look around for previous data). Interns, Staff Assistants, Legislative Assistants, and Legislative Correspondents are usually the lower end of the pay spectrum.  You also can't take the total and just multiply out for a yearly salary, but it will get you close.


    Here's McCain's



    I do agree Obama wants to be (3.66 / 3) (#51)
    by abfabdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:39:23 PM EST
    President, but then what?  Once he sits in that chair, what will he do?  That's what I still can't figure out.  His lack of passion for any issues in either the Illinois or U.S. Senate and how he did not show leaderhip in either of those places makes me question what his priorities are and what he will fight for.  It's a giant leap of faith.

    It's also why I am (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by abfabdem on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:42:33 PM EST
    having issues with comparing the experience of Palin to Obama in terms of the number of years they held their respective positions.  It's what each did in their time that is what will be looked at.  I'm afraid he does not come off too well when you get to specifics.

    Why women support Obama/Biden: (none / 0) (#10)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 09:59:19 PM EST
    Two words:  Sarah Palin

    That makes no sense (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:09:37 PM EST
    It makes sense to me, (2.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:30:17 PM EST
    but I should have added, "speaking for myself only."

    The Sarah Palin selection is what pushed me firmly into the Obama/Biden camp.  Female friends and family members who were for Hillary have told me the same thing.


    Is it because (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:33:29 PM EST
    she's a woman or because of her positions on the issues?

    I would have said, "Six words:  Sarah Palin's positions on the issues."


    Her positions of course! nt (none / 0) (#175)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:09:46 AM EST
    makes sense to me (none / 0) (#54)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:40:29 PM EST
    I don't want an evangelical anti-choice conservative in such a high office and most women who care about reproductive freedom, equal pay and similar issues shouldn't either.

    I am a life long-democrat, a woman (5.00 / 9) (#104)
    by americanincanada on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:44:19 PM EST
    a Florida voter and a lesbian and I don't appreciate being told what I should and should not want. I am for reproductive freedom but it is not the only issue I vote on.

    Women do not all believe or think the same. Not all democrats are pro-choice (I am) and women do not vote as a block. If we did Hillary would be our nominee.

    This looking down at women who do not believe as we do has never been my thing. I grew up in Florida. if I did not learn to get along with women who had radically different viewpoints than myself I would never have had any friends.

    I appreciate that just because I don't always agree on the abortion issue or even the GLBT rights issue does not mean we don't share some common values.


    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by janarchy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:11:51 PM EST
    I guess you don't have any Republican women friends then.

    Yes, there's been a MAJOR (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by Valhalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:24:24 PM EST
    conflation of late, of women, Democratic women, and Clinton supporters (who are not, after all, only women).

    As far as I know, Democrats have never gotten 100% of the female vote.

    At 52% of the population, women are a pretty diverse lot.

    It would not be worth pointing out the conflation, except it looks to be leading many pro-Obama and pro-DNC folks to misapprehend where the threat of both McCain and Palin are coming from.

    Constant screaming about coat hangers, for instance, will have no effect whatsoever on non-prochoice women, most Republican women, and a goodly part of Independent and middle of the road women.

    The blog world has made a fairly big mistake in assuming that Sarah Palin is McCain's attempt to get Clinton female Democrats and then superenergizing the bullying and attacks on the same.  It's like responding to a threat of nuclear war by beefing up your cavalry.


    This is true (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    Constant screaming about coat hangers, for instance, will have no effect whatsoever on non-prochoice women, most Republican women, and a goodly part of Independent and middle of the road women.

    I have had that conversation with two moderate Republican women, one of them who has had two abortions, and they don't care. They are more excited now about this election than any other they've been able to vote in.


    Not very many, you are right. (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:34:13 PM EST
    But I did speak to one this afternoon and she told me she is going to vote for Obama because of the Palin selection.  She's a retired physician and quite conservative.  

    I'm just saying (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by janarchy on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:15:36 PM EST
    I have friends who are Republican women, some of them are pro-choice, some are not. I have several who are right-to-life, conservative Christians. One is a creationist who is from a small town in WI and went to a state college (does this sound familiar?). They love her and can't wait to vote for her. I am 180 degrees in ideology from most of them but we're friends and respect one anothers beliefs. I just think that assuming everyone sees the world the way we do and will think the same is a bad idea.

    Women are not a monolithic voting block. It just saddens me that we're being all lumped together, regardless of by whom.


    Of course (none / 0) (#108)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:47:53 PM EST
    I was being too flip, I suppose.
    Nevertheless, women as a whole tend to vote somewhat differently than men, hence what is called "the gender gap."

    But I take your point.


    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by janarchy on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:33:44 AM EST
    Seriously, I know it's a really sad pipe dream but I wish people could discuss things without vitriol, without making the opposing ideas those of The Enemy, and try to see their positions even if they don't and could never agree with them themselves.

    I'm supporting neither party. I am just trying to support women in general.


    that's true (2.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:41:43 PM EST
    my friends happen to be Democrats. And if you aren't, you are limited to four comments a day here expressing support for Republicans.

    I thought you said (none / 0) (#67)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:48:18 PM EST
    if yours (friends) aren't you are limited. I thought, no!, do you know where I live? I'd be friendless.

    I have Republican associates but (none / 0) (#130)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:30:52 AM EST
    no Republican friends. There is a disconnect in terms of a total world view, belief system, and core values.

    I wouldn't condemn anybody who casts a protest vote this year. But being friends with anybody who actually FULLY ASCRIBES to the whole GOP mind set? NEVER.


    FWIW, I meant "fully subscribes". (none / 0) (#132)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:44:18 AM EST
    Not specifically. I am going to support them (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Teresa on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:12:34 PM EST
    because I supported Hillary (still do) and she and Bill convinced me to. I know when Hillary walks into that voting booth, she, who has more reason than anyone to be angry, will put that aside and vote for the issues she holds dear.

    I will do it out of respect for her and continue to let the DNC and the media know how I feel about the way she was treated.

    I made this decision before Palin was chosen and I think you did, too, Radiowalla.


    As did I (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:42:44 PM EST
    thanks for that. It is what Hillary asked her supporters to do and I agreed the day she dropped out, out of respect for her wishes and the good of the country.

    final straw (none / 0) (#152)
    by noholib on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 08:30:07 AM EST
    Despite my deep sorrow and disappointment about Senator Clinton's loss in the primary, I too--as a liberal-- made the decision long ago to vote Democratic in November.  Supporting the Republicans' destructive past record (in my view since President Reagan's anti-government, anti-tax mantras)and the Republican's agenda for the future is absolutely not an option for me.  However, the Clintons' exceptionally strong speeches this past week, and Senator Obama's beginning to talk more like a fighting Dem than before, did make me feel better about my vote.  In my view, they clarified the issues beautifully and starkly.  
    I always believe that issues, policies, party priorities and party histories matter. Individual personalities matter far less.  Unfortunately our Presidential, non-parliamentary political system skews this, as does our American Idol, celebrity-saturated culture.  
    Yes, finally, my commitment to the Democratic ticket has been energized and imbued with new passion by Senator McCain's choice of Governor Palin as the VP nominee.  For all kinds of reasons, but the major one: this is a ticket that supports all the radically right policies that I think are dangerous to the fundamental well-being of the American people.  I am frightened by the prospect of four more years of radical right Republican rule.
    And as for women's rights and equality and progress, which are extremely important to me, I would like to see the first woman in or near the Oval Office be one whose policies I endorse, not one whose views I abhor.  A radical right-wing woman in high office -- and man for that matter-- does nothing for this feminist except alarm me.

    IAWTC (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by eleanora on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 10:44:08 PM EST
    plus Obama's acceptance speech hit a lot of points that I care about. But I sure hope that this weekend isn't what we're going to be doing for the next two months.

    Barack Obama has to convince me (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Aug 31, 2008 at 11:36:07 PM EST
    To vote for him.

    McCain had other options, (none / 0) (#118)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 12:25:04 AM EST
    including moderate Republican women whose positions on abortion, gun control, and equal pay rights are not 100% antithetical to Senator Clinton's. (Women like, say, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, or even Condoleezza Rice.)

    Did you catch it when Palin repeated her make-nice-to-Clinton words before a partisan Republican audience, and the audience booed? Trust me, they weren't booing Palin per se. They were booing Senator Clinton -- whether out of habit or for old time's sake is anyone's guess.

    If I read that booing Hillary quote (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by zfran on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:14:28 AM EST
    one more time, I swear I'm going to throw something. Hillary was also booed when Gov. Selebius, a democrat at an Obama rally, mentioned Hillary's name to congratulate her on her primary run. Obama was right there, listening to this crowd not only boo, but watching Selebius try to simmer them down and he did nothing. The people who booed when Gov. Palin mentioned her, were republicans and were booing Hillary as an opposition. Now, this is an open forum, but please, please, stop telling that story. It means nothing, and imo, shows something about you.  

    Gov. Palin disagrees with Hillary down the line (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:28:01 AM EST
    zfran writes: "The people who booed when Gov. Palin mentioned [Hillary Clinton], were Republicans and were booing Hillary as an opposition."

    So what are you saying? That it is unpardonable sexism for Democrats to boo Senator Clinton; but it's perfectly understandable, morally neutral 'opposition' when Republicans do the same thing?

    I didn't tell the anecdote you objected to in order to argue that audiences of Republicans are as sexist as Democrats. (They probably are that, and a little bit more -- remember, "How do we beat the b*tch?" was a laughter-inducing question from an older woman at a McCain meeting -- but that's not my point.) My point was simply that the Republican evangelical base voters who are embracing Palin do not agree with most of Senator Clinton's core positions; and neither, as far as I can see, does Governor Palin herself.

    Further evidence: In 2000, Palin was an outspoken advocate for hard-right-wing Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan. (I have this on good authority: Buchanan himself.) Now let me be clear: I have no problem with a woman (or a man) who is outspoken. I do object to Pat Buchanan's 2000 agenda, which seemed to want to escalate the culture war to full-out combat mode.

    In other words, what I believe about Palin is that she is a far more extreme right-winger than John McCain, or even W. I don't think I am being sexist by opposing her, any more than I was racist for opposing Alan Keyes. I find it entirely unsurprising that many prominent women supporters of Senator Clinton are, like Clinton herself, backing Obama/Biden.


    It means nothing that Republicans booed Hillary? (none / 0) (#131)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 01:33:29 AM EST
    It tells me that they are not able to control their crowd's reaction, the same as we are not.  Their game plan it to pretend to like the Clintons, to praise them, so that they can keep the rift in the Dem party going.  Why would Republicans bad-mouth the Clintons for all these years, then suddenly act like Hillary's the best thing since white meat?  They're just stirring the pot, over and over and over.  

    Do you and the original poster who got deleted think that feminists should refuse to vote for Obama and help McCain win because Obama didn't stand up and defend Hillary, his opponent?  Like she needs him to defend her or other women.  
    And Obama didn't stop people on blogs or on Faux News from being sexist.  Yeah, maybe he should have stopped campaigning to spend time cleaning up the nastiness on the blogs.  Feminists ought to not vote for him because of his inattention to sexism on blogs, right?  I don't think so.

    I'm a feminist.  And yet I chose Obama over Hillary.  I didn't like the sexism on the blogs, and I countered it when I could.  But I don't expect our male candidate to protect our female candidate from sexism.  Why do you?  What did you expect Obama to do when the crowd booed as Gov. Sebelius mentioned Hillary?  Jump up and interrupt Sebelius' introduction to try to "manage" the crowd?  While he was getting ready to speak, and while Sebelius was speaking?  

    I don't like what happened in Fl & Mi, I think the party should just let states vote whenever they want to because trying to manage the order that states vote puts the Dem party leadership in a no-win position.  But my party doesn't always make decisions I agree with, and they made decisions about those two states.  Oh well, it's over and done.  I'm certainly not going to vote for our opponent because I'm mad about FL & MI.  

    McCain doesn't care about women's issues.  When he says he does, he's lying to you.  He has Palin because the GOP is trying to reenergize their base.  He's not more "courageous" than Obama because they picked Palin for VP.  He'll actively work against our Democratic and feminist issues.  Period.  

    That is why feminists who you and the deleted commenter don't speak for will support and vote for Obama.  


    I really don't even know where to (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by zfran on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:13:32 AM EST
    begin. First of all, controlling the crowds reaction has nothing to do with anything. It was rude no matter which side did it. Whether I choose to vote for Obama is my vote, period. When Obama mentioned other opponents, either dem or repub. at his rallys, I didn't hear booing. If you don't like what your party is doing, then, as BTD always says, hold their feet to the fire. Accepting without questioning and saying so what means that you are asked, once again, to put your blindfold on and vote for that candidate. I choose to protect my vote this year. I have been told by the dem party I'm not wanted, needed, important and they've name-called. Why should I reward them. But, I've never booed Obama or anyone else. I believe Obama doesn't care about women's issues. That makes it a push!  

    The Dem party includes people like me (none / 0) (#142)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:42:35 AM EST
    I haven't called you names or said you're not wanted or needed.  I care about women's issues.  Am I not part of the party?  

    So some people booed Hillary.  So what?  Since when has the Dem party agreed on everything.  Have we always been nice to each other and not booed any of the candidates?  Believe it or not, many people think Hillary should have quit earlier this spring and they blame her for continuing to hamstring our candidate.  They thought the Clintons were cashing in on racism, even promoting or encouraging it.  That makes people boo you.  So they were rude.  So what?  What is it about some people booing Hillary that would make you extrapolate to "the party has told me I'm not wanted or needed?"


    There's really no excuse for rudeness (5.00 / 2) (#147)
    by Ardeth on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 04:26:19 AM EST
    Folks in politics surely do disagree, often vehemently.  But back in the neolithic era when I grew up, I learned that there are very few good excuses for treating other people disrespectfully.  Haven't found too many reasons over the years to change my opinion on that matter.

    In group situations like the ones we're discussing, it makes perfect sense to clap when you agree, and withhold the applause when you disagree. Booing, IMO, is unnecessary, disrespectful and rude.

    From what I've heard of the convention, Obama's whips were quite eager to ensure that none of Hillary's supporters indulged in any such public displays of rudeness.  If there was indeed any booing, it didn't make it to the TV microphones (although some perfectly polite tears did).


    Let me be clear. I believe (none / 0) (#154)
    by zfran on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    your original intent on the "booing" story you posted was to somehow glean a response to the less than stellar treatment of Sen. Clinton. That story has been told over and over and over ad nausum since it occurred. The dem party, not you, have insulted my intelligence, altho' you have just come close, among many other infractions, not to mention lies the party and "our" dem candidate has told. For some, perhaps, there is no choice. To me, there is always a choice, albeit, not always the easiest one. I have lived my life as a strong leader and I will not be "told" to follow along without questions, without information, and without a soul. That's where this used to be loyal dem party has taken me to. Don't insult me and then want my vote. I believe you, me, and my country deserve better.

    Response to Ardeth and zfran (none / 0) (#161)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 11:48:55 AM EST
    Ardeth: "In group situations like the ones we're discussing, it makes perfect sense to clap when you agree, and withhold the applause when you disagree. Booing, IMO, is unnecessary, disrespectful and rude. From what I've heard of the convention, Obama's whips were quite eager to ensure that none of Hillary's supporters indulged in any such public displays of rudeness."

    OK, let's assume that's true -- I certainly do. Then you seem to be accusing Obama's whips of nothing more trying to maintain your own etiquette standards. (Unless you remember a case where, at the convention, Obama's whips looked the other way as his supporters booed a fellow Democrat, or worse, encouraged such booing?)


    zfran: "I believe your original intent on the 'booing' story you posted was to somehow glean a response to the less than stellar treatment of Sen. Clinton. That story has been told over and over and over ad nauseam since it occurred."

    "That story" is not some tired old chestnut. It occurred on Saturday, the day before I originally referred to it. Yes, I did intend to show that a noteworthy and very recent example of hostility to Senator Clinton came from, not surprisingly, a Palin audience.

    I'm not here to insult anyone's intelligence, certainly not yours. I don't speak in any official way for the Obama campaign, though (full disclosure) I am an Obama supporter, since long before it became fashionable on this site. If it helps at all, I will honestly say the words I think you want to hear:

    We want your vote. We need your vote, and your passion.

    We agree much, much more than we disagree.

    Please, come home.


    Please do not insult me. The dem (none / 0) (#166)
    by zfran on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:13:57 PM EST
    party has already done that. The story you refer to on Saturday has been repeated here so many times I've lost count by various bloggers. You were not the first to "report" it and I imagine you will not be the last. As I've been told so many times by Brazile, Pelosi, Obama and the like, "get over it." Coming home, for me, is not to take my vote for granted. Coming home, for me, is to provide and leave a better country for my children. Coming home, to me, means making up my own mind without being "told" how to vote. Coming home, to me, means wanting a president who says otherwise, but votes to continue a war and spy on me further than this adm. ever did (as bad as they are).

    I'm sorry you feel insulted. Not my intent. (none / 0) (#172)
    by Don in Seattle on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 07:46:50 PM EST
    As an Obama supporter, I know I cannot demand your vote. I am asking for it. (Probably in both senses of that last sentence!)

    I personally have been on the short end of the nominating race more times than I care to recall. But for the record: 1984 (Hart), 1988 (Babbitt, then Gore), 1992 (Tsongas), 2000 (Bradley), and 2004 (Dean). Eventually the pain goes away, but you don't forget.

    I was not happy about Obama's FISA vote, either. But if you really think Obama wants to continue the Iraq war, and spy on you, more than Bush or McCain, then (How can I say this without being insulting?) you are, I'm afraid, seriously deluding yourself.

    Apologies -- there must be some better way I could have put that.

    Look, we both know I can't make you vote one way or the other. All I can do is have faith that eventually you'll vote your conscience.


    Sen. Obama's first "judgement" vote (none / 0) (#173)
    by zfran on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 10:17:27 PM EST
    as a candidate for president, came in the form of his FISA vote. He literally voted himself executive power when he said he'd vote against the measure and then voted for it and explained his vote with a smile. That is really when the tide turned for me. I want a president who thinks of country first, not himself. I will not settle. That may mean no top of the ticket vote (which, by the way, is not very satisfying for me), but Sen. Obama does not deserve my vote. His and the DNC's dishonesty, deceipt, pander, elitish attitude no longer interest me. Funny how when you think independently, not dem or repub, you can see more of the middle of the road, ready to listen to some you've never listened to type of attitude. This election is ripe with vile and very disturbing varments coming out of the woodwork, and I, for one, will not be a part of it.

    Obama voted strategically on FISA (none / 0) (#174)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 12:02:49 AM EST
    The FISA bill was going to pass, with or without Obama's vote. Obama made the judgment that casting a symbolic vote against FISA would hurt his chances with conservatives and independents in the general election.

    He may or may not have been correct in this judgment. As I said before, I personally was somewhat disappointed with this vote. Still, I'm a pragmatist: if I knew it would make the difference in getting him elected, I would be all for it. Oh, well. We can never know that for sure, can we?

    The rationale for your rampant Obama-hatred shifts from one post to the next. I have tried to be civil, but I no longer care to engage with your scattershot accusations: "dishonesty, deceit, pander, elitish attitude," not to mention "very disturbing varmints coming out of the woodwork." I am not going to indulge you any further; our conversation is done.

    I wish I could say I have enjoyed talking with you. I hope you find your way out from the labyrinth of carefully cultivated resentments you seem trapped inside; a labyrinth you have constructed for yourself.


    The feeling is mutual. And,oh, by the (none / 0) (#177)
    by zfran on Tue Sep 02, 2008 at 06:04:46 AM EST
    way, keep compromising on what principles you seem to have. It is only the future and well-being of our country which directly affects ourselves and those who will come after us. One question does linger, however, if his FISA vote was to appease and attract what I call repub. lites and Reagan dems, then why, when he made his acceptance speech did he suddenly become the progressive dem that some thought he originally was? Why suddenly pander? Which Obama is he, the one that panders or the one that panders? As he continues to shift right, and then left, as it suits him, then I hope those who choose to drink the kool-aid get what their looking for and worshiping. God help us all!

    It's called leadership (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 02:15:40 AM EST
    And it's not too much to ask a candidate who wants our votes to stand up against bigotry - especially when it is happening right in front of him.

    Democrats were supposed to stand for women's rights but our leadership can't say sexism is wrong?

    Of course it's his job to do this - it's the job of any leader or candidate who would presume to be our champion and ask for our support.  Wouldn't you expect him to speak out against the war, or poverty or lack of health care?  then why not this issue?  It is verboten to attack sexism?  Strange position for a feminist.


    Aussie anecdote (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by marian evans on Mon Sep 01, 2008 at 03:32:41 AM EST
    With regard to political responses to sexism, I was in Australia during their general election last year. The deputy leader of their Labor Party (the political left party) was a woman (Julia Gillard, now the Deputy Prime Minister - sort of VP equivalent).

    She is 40ish (I guess), I think she has a male partner (as opposed to married), and has no children. A troglodyte right wing politician (can't remember his name, but he was very socially conservative) called her "deliberately barren".

    This caused a meltdown. Interestingly, he was jumped on from a great height by her party, HIS party (his women colleagues lined up to kick him), and (and you won't believe this...THE MEDIA).

    And that was the end of the story. No more sexist language. But the Aussies seem to have a much more "polite" political setting than the US - more like the UK.

    To top it off, the Aussies also have a member of the executive (cabinet minister) who is minority (Chinese born, I think), female and a lesbian.

    America could sure learn something from its smaller cousins!