Obama supporters and at least some Clinton supporters are talking at cross purposes

[hedgehog]

For the Obama supporters, the election is all about the particular people involved. For whatever reason, they prefer Obama over Hillary Clinton. For at least some Clinton supporters, it was all about the fact that a viable woman candidate was running. Think of Emily's List cubed. All the criticisms of Hillary were perceived as attacks on all women in general and not directed at the specific person of Hillary Clinton. Thus, the selection of Obama over Clinton is perceived by some as a rejection of all women. Ironically, by reducing the person of Hillary Clinton to a generic woman, this subset of Hillary supporters is actually reversing the progress women have made.

[EFerrari]

1. Equating the candidate with all women was encouraged by the campaign.

She said, for example, that she would continue to "fight for them" so they wouldn't be "invisible". And as ProSense pointed out yesterday, campaign surrogates continue to make divisive comments.

Hopefully this week that will stop because it's not helping people to move into GE mode.

/oops

[Adelante]

5. Talk about "invisible"

Who's been invisible all along is us women for Obama.

[EFerrari]

11. No kidding. Goggling around yesterday, I found a t-shirt that says

OLD WHITE WOMEN FOR OBAMA.

lol

[Adelante]

20. Heh

:D

I'm catching up on some reading today. This interested me.

One of the Democratic campaign's great misperceptions has been that Clinton held an overwhelming advantage among women voters. But that isn't the case. As expected, Clinton captured the over-65 vote, and Obama won over younger women. But women in the middle split almost evenly between the two.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1812050,00.html?xid=rss-topstories


It's amazing how effective mythologizing can be in political campaign seasons, between campaign spin and media complicity.

They spun us straight out of existence!

[Marrah_G]

2. My head is spinning just reading that.

[hedgehog]

3. Why is your head spining? I was careful to suggest that I was talking about only

a sub-set of Clinton supporters. I think we will not understand their anger unless we understand why they were supporting Hillary.

[papau]

6. I suggest a majority of Clinton supporters were with her because they liked her and expected real

change - she was not the person whose campaign staff kept telling folks it was all just "campaign talk".

At this point I suspect he can win without Hillary as VP - but by 3 or more less states where her on ticket would be a 5% increase in vote for the ticket that would decide the state.

For many no Hillary on Ticket means a much closer look at the GOP as an alternative that has less sexism and 8th grade boys gym class put downs of successful women.

I believe Obama has no more desire to "unify" than the DU Obama fans - meaning he will not put her on the ticket and will depend on "they have no place else to go" plus the obvious increase in support resulting from Hillary pushing her supporters to Obama.

[earthlover]

4. I think some are now very upset that what they saw as the best chance

for a woman president in their lifetimes is taken away. This is a huge sense of frustration.

So it appears the anger in some cases is being directed as Obama because he defeated her. Forgetting, of course, that McCain also is male....and...unlike Obama.....McCain is not at all sympathetic with women' issues such as choice.

The anger will hopefully give way to reason. The election of McCain would do nothing for the cause of womens rights. Or any other rights, for that matter.

For her generation, Hillary was going to be the one.

I think Hillary should be considered for VP (I am not endorsing her at this point, but I think that, depending on how things go, she could very easily be the best candidate). However, Obama's campaign should not be held hostage here.

[hedgehog]

8. Exactly! I think in about 5-10 years as the next generation of politicians comes up,

that picture is going to change drastically. There are dozens (hundreds?) of women working their way up through the ranks now. It's not a case of Hillary now or no woman ever, but that is what some believe.

[merh]

9. I'm sorry, I just can't understand that mindset and I am a woman.

Who the hell cares if a woman is elected president in my life time? I sure the hell don't. I want the best candidate and that wasn't hillary. When it came down to the two I was torn, both Obama and Hillary have similiar platforms, their positions are not much different. What made me see Obama as the better candidate was the way he was running his campaign, the way he was staying about the petty crap and negatives and the way she was telling lies and exaggerating her position and experience. Then add to that the supporters that say the Clinton presidency as a two-for-one, you get Hillary and Bill comes along as a bonus, and I saw her chances in the GE plummet. The right hates Bill, they aren't so fund of Hillary, the two on the ticket as a co-presidency, which is what the right would turn it into, would be disasterous.

My dislike of Hillary was about disliking Hillary the candidate, not Hillary the female.

When her female supporters stop blaming her loss on her sex then maybe the sexist comments will stop. Her loss was because of her lies, the fear as to the GOP attacks on her in the GE and a piss poor campaign. She didn't make herself out to be a strong candidate on her own with a great platform and the needs of the people in mind, her campaign was being about the wife of the former president and how she was supposed to win, entitled to win because other women before her worked so hard. But that she had worked that hard on her own before she set out on the adventure imagine how successful she would have been.

[hedgehog]

13. I would tend to agree with you, but I think those who

support Hillary because they want a woman president will interpret what you wrote as an attack on women, not an attack on Hillary. No matter how well reasoned or well supported your statements, there is no getting past that.

[merh]

18. How? I didn't attack women - I never said that women are not

qualified to hold office and that women don't have the emotional or intellectual abilities to be leaders. Those are attacks on women. I said I don't vote for a candidate because she is a woman, I vote for the best candidate on the ticket and this time is was not Hillary.

If they continue with the load of sexist crap then it is them that is being sexist. I don't deny the media was horrible but the hillary camp and many of her supporters egged that on. Hillary lost, if it were a man that lost as Hillary lost, he would be seen as the one that didn't win, he would not be making himself out to be a victim as the hillary camp and many of her supporters are trying to do.

[moriah]

7. I'm glad you say only some Clinton supporters.

And I'm fairly sure that there were *some* Obama supporters who were "all about" the fact that a viable African-American candidate was running. But my honest belief is that those "some" supporters of both sides who were basing their decision on either race or gender number very few.

For me, supporting Hillary had more to do with the things I've seen her accomplish here in Arkansas, the things she accomplished and the grit she showed as First Lady, and the things that she accomplished as a Senator. I was willing to vote for a candidate that voted to authorize the war in Iraq -- I voted for Kerry, after all. She'd done other things as a Senator that I was proud of. I've always believed she was intelligent and strong-willed (even if her being willing to stay with Bill was not a demonstration of those things, in my opinion).

Perhaps she accomplished some of those things because she was a woman -- she's voted to protect choice, she's worked hard for education, etc. Some consider those "womanly" subjects.

But my vote for her in the primaries wasn't because she was female. My vote for Obama in the general election will not be because he's African-American, either. I may have thought Hillary would do a better job, but Barack isn't bad, and he's certainly got better plans for this country than John McCain does.

Thanks for not lumping all of the Clinton supporters together. I appreciate that.

[hedgehog]

10. I think the Hillary supporters I'm discussing would tend to be the loudest.

Unless you get past the words to what is really being said, we'll just be shouting past each other.

[moriah]

19. Just so you know, my "thank you" wasn't being sarcastic.

I meant it. I agree that obnoxious ignorant people tend to shout loudest.

I was just saying for me, it wasn't all about gender. If there'd been a woman running on the Republican side, I wouldn't have voted for her. Those for whom it was really all about gender would have. Which I think is just sad.

I've heard people suggesting that McCain should ask the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly, to be his Veep. She's already his "Victory 08" chair. Their reasoning? She's a chick. Oh, and yes, she could shore up McCain on the economic policy side.

The Clinton supporters who are all about a woman in the White House would likely very happily vote Republican just to get a woman in, even if she was VP. And would end up with a president who wants to take away our right to choose. If they are only wanting a candidate because of their gender and not because of their policies, they deserve what they get.

[kelligesq]

12. You talk the cult of peronality - "liked her" - nonsense, nothing to do with like - to do

with listening to their stands on issues, and who was perceived as more ready , with more answers and plans for the country, and a better leader -

The problem is the Obama followers who are in the cult of personality, and who think this is an American Idol contest. For sure Obama is the better rockstar.
Rockstar is not going to "do it" as we go into the biggest depression since 1929.

If someone like Blumberg decided to run as an independent, a proven success monetarily, economically, who has governing experience of the next toughest job to president, but dull as hell,and without any shady dealings, a lot of disenfranchised people from the dem party, not just women, would be voting for someone like that with a proven track record.

[merh]

14. I call bullshit.

Their positions weren't that much different - it was and still is for many a cult personality thing with Hillary - as so many have written, to have a woman president in their lifetime or to have someone like Big Dawg back in the office or whatever.

Compare the two campaigns, which campaign is in debt and which one is not - right there is a dead give away as to who ran the better campaign. I want the better of the two - being $30 million in debt doesn't give me much confidence about how that campaign or candidate could help out our economy.

[hedgehog]

16. What got lost in the shuffle is that this is as much about a generational divide

as anything else. Back in 2006 and well into 2007 everyone assumed that Hillary had the nomination because she had all the money sources in the bag. Obama went out and discovered an entirely new source of campaign funding. Hillary had plenty of money to run an old style campaign. Obama ran a new style campaign and he managed to outlast her.


On edit: the fact that Obama has proven his ability to sidestep the Republican money machine may be the single reason he is the most electable. We Democrats have a poor record of going up against that old Republican money machine head-on.

[hedgehog]

15. That's the mirror image of what I'm discussing. Many of those who did

not have Obama as their first choice can not understand that not all Obama supporters are involved with a cult of personality.

[ClassWarrior]

17. Wrong.

"For the Obama supporters, the election is all about the particular people involved."

If that were true, I'd still be rooting for Edwards. For me, the election is all about the candidate who looks the most like s/he can deliver for Progressives.

And considering how spectacularly Hilly has failed to lead in the Senate, it's sure not her.

NGU.