 by Trish BendixNavigation |
The Gay Agenda: Is John McCain good for women?This week, VisibleVote08.com's Jennifer Vanasco and Jon Mallow want to know if John McCain is a good choice for women voters.
We already know he's bad for gays, but the media has lately gone crazy over the idea that Hillary's female supporters are going over to the Republican side. But is that true? And if they are, who are they? And if they are, should they? The Gay Agenda June 20, 2008
Submitted by on June 20, 2008 - 5:00pm. |
User login |
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
No women nominees = no women votes
I'd like to see different views represented. I certainly don't agree or identify with either of you.
Yes, Jennifer, there are many women like myself, previously voting Democrat, who will not vote for Obama. The very fact that Mrs. Obama, Cindy McCain, Carla Fiorina (sp?) and other women suddenly are finding themselves paraded in front of cameras is evidence that women's votes are very important to either candidate.
The points that neither of you seem to understand are these:
1) Hillary Clinton started her campaign years before Obama. If he had valued her candidacy and the advancement of women, he would not have run this time. Instead, he would have volunteered to help her campaign. BUT HE HAD OTHER AGENDAS.
2) Women are the largest demographic in the US. There are more women than men. So why do we not have a woman president yet? Blacks constitue about 20%. There are more hispanics than blacks! And, no, it is not racist for me to point out these figures.
3) Knowing all this, the Democratic Party decided that nominating a woman was not important, and they concluded that women would just fall in line with the party no matter who was nominated.
They have proven that they are not serious about representing women after all, so we are getting out. We don't care who the nominee is from the other party; we're just voting for him in order to empty the Democratic Party of Obama supporters who couldn't care less about women.
If the Democratic Party wants to win the largest demographic in America, WOMEN, they'll have to nominate one!! Period!! We've waited long enough, and there are no excuses left.
Lastly, your statements about McCain's stances on the issues of gays was made irrelevant by the nomination of Obama. Now, neither party plans to go out on a limb for gays!! Obama's troops are planning wonderful, glittery gay parties this summer and fall to encourage gays to donate to the campaigns. But at the same time, he will be publicly distancing himself from gays. Because of the California ruling allowing gay marriage, there will be a backlash from middle America against gays. Therefore, neither candidate can be seen supporting gays.
Ummm and your point is?
You have said the same thing over and over again on previous posts. This election is a big deal because we are actually talking about Supreme Court justices here. Do you really want the supreme court taken over by republicans. Also, you are insulting Hillary who has worked and is still working hard for the democratic party. You claim to be the voice of all women voters but you are not mine. I'm an independent woman with my own ideas
Information
If you go to the link above in the blog, you can view McCain's HRC report card.
This is a link to Obama and Clinton's report card. They are IDENTICAL. Obama and Clinton are IDENTICAL on the HRC report card in every category.
I do not care if you hate Obama. But please use some other reason to justify voting for McCain other than gay rights. Gay rights is not an issue that should be screwed around with. Not here. Stop trying to misinform the gay community.
The HRC report card is flawed.
I agree with you completely on that last point, and what's more... the HRC report card isn't a perfect indicator of their positions. Notice how the first question only asks about section 3 of the DOMA? The fact is that Obama, unlike Clinton, favors a full repeal of the DOMA and not just parts of it: http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/06/was_the_fix_in_.html The wording of the HRC report card masks this difference, and I've seen some suggestions around the blogosphere that this was deliberate.
In any case I'm a little disapointed in the HRC for not supporting the candidate that has the best gay rights record (which would have been Obama or Dennis Kunich) and then wording all of the information on their website to make it seem as if they were.
Not good
Have to say I'm left with 3 possible opinions after that post - you are crazy, stupid, or spoiled.
1) It is self-destructive for a woman, let alone a gay woman to vote for a candidate who not only says he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but has an active record of working towards that. Also, McCain's record on gay rights - not good. So that makes me think you may be insane (definition - danger to yourself and others)
2) Maybe you're just stupid? Incapable of processing basic information and facts? Your post would indicate you can read and write and understand basic statistics - but maybe that's as far as your neuronal net can go?
3) I'm strongly hoping you're just spoiled. You didn't get the candidate you want and now you're indulging in a bit of a political temper tantrum, stomping your feet and shouting "I won't vote for Obama! I won't! I won't! I won't!"
Look, I love Hilary, too. I'm female and would dearly love to see a woman president in my lifetime. But who we elect president has NEVER been about population percentages, it's about who the people that actually take the time to cast a ballot will vote for. And Obama won this time.
That contest is over and now we have moved into a MUCH clearer one. The old guy who wants to take away basic rights, or the new guy with the really good voting record. Personally, I don't have to do any soul-searching on this one. I think it would be very helpful if you moved on with the rest of us and stopped acting like a 2 year old in a grocery store when Mom says she can't have the Cap'n Crunch.
Two things
Though you've been picked on enough, which I don't find altogether necessary, I have to admit that I'm irritated by two things that you have failed to acknowledge in an e-mail that was clearly sent in a huff.
Firstly, as a former Hillary supporter, I, too, believed that she was the most appropriate candidate due to her greater experience with politics, involvement with many important committees and organizations, and a more extensive voting record than the one Obama had to show for himself. I will assume that you had a similar feeling at the time. However, even the most fervent supporter can admit that she made several egregious errors over the course of her campaign that brought her integrity into question.
The first such error was her claim of having dodged bullets in Bosnia, an experience that she claimed gave her insight into what soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan were enduring. Of course, this is not true. I let it go, thinking it was an off-the-cuff comment cum blunder than anyone could be capable of making. However, it is also the sort of comment that trivializes the experiences of our soldiers and the losses that they and their families have endured.
Nevertheless, she also used the specter of assassination as her primary reason for staying in the game long after it was her time to give it up. This, for me, was the straw that broke the camel's back. Though it was a comment that was likely made in a haze of depression and dejection, it was terribly irresponsible and unprofessional. But I think she realizes that now.
There was also her support of an attack on Iran, a statement that may have been made to show that she could be as assertive a commander-in-chief as anyone, but still foolish.
Secondly, when you refer to women as a group, are you including women of color, too? When you think of black people do you think that we are one monolithic group that votes in the same way and has the same concerns? Do you think that about women? It just goes to show what a bang-up job major media outlets have done in dividing up this country into categories of "either/or" for the election. Liberals who've long prided themselves on thinking outside of the box have shown how much they really rely on their labels and the opinions that are supposed to come with them.
stop saying WE.
john mccain
"if i ever start to think straight this heart will start a riot in me."
Too bad she's not running
It's INSANE
"democratic" women who won't vote for Obama
Write In
I would consider this
I would consider this option, too, but my state doesn't have written ballots. Perhaps I could fill in an absentee vote early. Interesting option...
If people go that route, all
Let's say race has a little bit MORE to do with this...
i'm going to go out on a limb and voice the fact that many woman are undeniably racist. Now before I get screamed at let me say my peice. Women, especially it seems white women, are unfortunately trained from a young age to be AFRAID of a black man. They will rape and kill you and worse. Now, a lot of this might fade as women get older but I think I see in the case of women supporting Hilary, she is a strong female leader and ran a FIERCE campaign against Obama. Her main demographic was white women from their mid to late 20's to 50's. Women that I feel are still in an age group where they are offended by racism how ever subconcious it may be. Now, add to this that there is a white man who could be anyones father and I can see how they would naturally just jump to him instead of supporting a candidate who has similar views as the woman that they so strongly supported. It is sad but still to this day, appearances mean everything and eventhough McCain might not be good for gays, women and it seems -like with his backtracking on his environmental stances in which he is now in agreement with other republicans to drill in the Alaskan wildlife reserve, something he was extremely opposed to pre-nomination- that just because he is white he will be taking Hilary Clinton's women. Sadly, i feel that this is just one of many issues that have remained in the background as we see a "minority" candidate in the rise. The fact that we are all still shocked by appearances and, quite frankly, skin pigment, so much that it would influence whose political, social, and economical opinions and views we would chose to RUN US and lead us in SUCH a troubled time, is just sad, and quite frankly, shocking. This is just one gal's opinion. I am not a white woman so I can mearly just add my $.02 on what I note about what I have seen in my short and, albeit uncomplicated, life. Sad that THIS is the land of the free and unbiased that my family risked life and limb trying to come to.
-Alex
Hmmmmmmmmmmm......so, I'm afraid of black men?
Feminism means just supporting women, not beliefs? news to me.
I agree
I think it's a bad idea for any one to vote for a candidate because of their gender.I thought feminism is about choice. If I choose to support a male candidate does that mean that I'm less of a feminist? Of course not.
I agree 100%. I'm sick of
You're not wrong
@Alex: Except the bit about racism fading as women get older. My grandmother and my partner's grandmother are extremely racist because they grew up during an era where it really was pounded into their head that black men are savages that rape and kill white women.
I didn't even realize how strong this fear was until this election. My grandmother is actually pretty open minded about gays. She accepts and supports me as well as my Aunt (her daughter)...and she loves both of our partners. But holy-moly I was shocked at the things she said would happen if Obama was elected. I couldn't even come up with a way to argue with it...it was so filled with 1940s propaganda. I don't think even a psychiatrist would have luck undoing it. It was like a whole other person in there.
@Cesshele That's fine. But the topic is Clinton supporters voting for McCain. Clinton supporters not voting for McCain OR Obama is really a whole other topic.
I know that as a trend the
Not a question of race
Change by Obama
NAFTA
During the primaries Obama called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake". Now as nominee he backed off his attacks on the free trade agreement and indicated he didn't want to unilaterally reopen negotiations on NAFTA.
Public financing
Obama was a longtime advocate for public financing. Now he announced in an opportunistic manner that he would opt out of the public financing system for the general election.
Israel
In September, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Obama didn't make the vote, but he trashed the resolution and used Clinton's support of it to drive a wedge between her and the antiwar crowd. At the same time, Obama announced that he would meet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without precondition" and declared that Iran was merely a "tiny threat." That’s quite a nice expression for a radical government that is the most serious threat to the security of Israel, whether through its support of Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Syria, its development of nuclear weapons, or its threat to wipe Israel off the map. What was one of his first actions after winning the nomination? He addressed the preeminent pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). At the meeting he said that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard "has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization" and that "there is no greater threat to Israel - or to the peace and stability of the region - than Iran."
Close relationships
As soon as Obamas relationships with some people were getting too much under critique, he started to distance himself from those people (at least officially). One prominent example is Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, a racist and ant-Semit who honored anti-Semitic Louis Farrakhan with an award. Robert Malley is another example, one of his foreign-policy advisors. The anti-Israeli academic was dismissed for having regular contact with Hamas. The list goes on.
Message of inclusion
Contradicting his message of inclusion campaign volunteers recently barred two Muslim women from sitting behind the podium at an Obama rally in Detroit. They wanted to prevent the women's headscarves from appearing in photographs with the candidate. To bad the incident got public so the campaign had to apologize for the volunteers' actions. (If they were really for inclusion they would better criticize headscarves as a sign of woman segregation. To make it clear: the headscarve is not a religious sign that reflects the relationship of an individual to god but to the opponent sex, unlike the cross of a Christian or the Kippa of Jew. The headscarve represents moreover the different status of woman and man in the Muslim society.)
Establishment
He promised to break up with the establishment of Washington (strange promise anyway, as if a President could do politics without working together with the Congress, a part of the establishment).Instead he gave any endorsement by the democratic establishment a warm welcome. He now also welcomes Clinton as a supporter (thought she is a representative of the establishment par excellence), because he needs the vote of women. Speaking of women, in the beginning of his campaign, women held about a half-dozen top positions, such as lead fundraiser, chief operating officer and policy director. But his chain of command — from the campaign manager to the chief strategist to key deputies, pollsters and media consultants — is a boys club … now his campaign suddenly has significantly ramped up its hiring of women in senior staff positions.
All in all Obama is a politician like anyone else who just pretends not to be, that makes him worse than the others. It is not a question of race or sex.
And as European I hope the USA will be led by a President who has a clear position against totalitarian regimes like the Iranian government.
Greets from Switzerland
P.S. Hope my English is understandable.
Re: Frances
While I do not agree with the above comment about women not supporting Obama because we are racist (wow), I have to refute some of what you have said here.
On the public financing - the media has twisted this story. ALL of Obama's campaign funds have come DIRECTLY from the donations of voters. Obama has opted out of the public financing SYSTEM run by WASHINGTON. He stated that he will not participate in the system because it is "broken." Obama practices the truest and purest form of public financing by collecting donations from his supporters. He is the FIRST major presidential candidate to do this, and has been wildly successful with it. He has proven that grassroots fundraising, where money goes directly from voters to the campaign WORKS, and that a Washington-controlled system of "public financing" is not necessary.
On Reverend Wright and others - you are only telling the parts of the story that are convenient to support your point. Throughout everyone's lives we are in contact with people who we may not agree with on every single issue. The clips of Reverend Wright spread through the media were cherry picked and taken out of context, showing 3 or 4 moments out of a 20-something year career. As for the Louis Farrakhan issue - Obama has ALWAYS said that he is not a supporter. Do you support every single person that your pastor, or boss, or friend supports......?
On the Muslim women who were not seated behind him - a couple of his staff volunteers asked them to move, NOT Obama. Obama did not even know about it until after and spoke with the women and personally apologized and explained that he considered it completely unacceptable. With all the fear-mongering that the right wing is doing, trying to scare voters into thinking Obama is Muslim - which right-wingers have now equated with terrorism - you can see why his staffers were nervous about him being photographed with women in hijab. Does that make it right? NO. But do not blame Obama for a poor decision by VOLUNTEERS (i.e. regular everyday Joe's) that he did NOT KNOW ABOUT and later apologized for and called unacceptable.
As far as being an outsider vs. establishment... Are you really going to condemn him for accepting the support of the Democratic party???? He's the Democratic nominee for crying out loud! OF COURSE he's going to accept Hillary's support and seek the support of her fans - they are both Democrats!!!!!! While they disagree on some issues, they still share the common beliefs of the Democratic party and in EVERY SINGLE US ELECTION, after the primaries, all candidates get behind the chosen nominee! That is how it works.
As far as women in his staff, you mention women holding about 6 positions including COO, Lead Fundraiser and Policy Director - and you are complaining about this? Those are very prominent positions in the campaign. Would you only be satisfied if every single person on his team was a woman? Even Hillary didn't have only women.
----------------------------------------
http://feministhousewife.wordpress.com
Re: Not a question of race
Women are incapable of making rational decsions.
My Mom has historically had little interest in politics, although she always votes. She did actually used to vote Republican. This year though, she's been really engaged and watching debates and speeches and I do think that's mostly due to Clinton running. She doesn't even like B. Clinton, but clearly H. Clinton ignited something in her.
Clinton supporters switching to McCain sounded very absurd to me. But now that you mention it, it seems very possible that there are Clinton supporters who are Republican but were just interested in voting for a woman.
And if there are women who are Democrats even considering voting for McCain, then I have to assume it must be some sort of revenge vote.
Something that I find rather disturbing though is that kinda says there's a lot of women who are not voting on the issues, who never were voting on the issues and have no intention of voting on the issues. That kinda makes me go "thank you for proving the stereotype that women are not capable of making rational descisions." The very stereotype that any woman running for President must overcome. Ironic.
I find alittle's last paragraph above baffling since the reason I supported Obama over Clinton was that he is better on gay issues.
Early on in the primaries one of the "top stories" was how much Clinton and Obama are alike on the issues, and they really had to distinguish themselves by concentrating on the details.
For instance, Clinton and Obama both support getting rid of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and repealing the "Defense of Marriage Act", but Obama goes a step farther in wanting to repeal all of DOMA where Clinton wanted to repeal only part of it. McCain on the other hand thinks "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and DOMA are the best thing since sliced bread.
Clinton and Obama both support a national healthcare plan, but Obama wants it to be voluntary and Clinton wanted it mandatory like Social Security. McCain wants to give people who get insurance a tax credit....because he's a moron and doesn't get that people living paycheck to paycheck cannot wait until April 12th to pay their bills.
Clinton and Obama want to get out of Iraq, McCain wants to stay there.
Clinton and Obama are pro-choice, McCain is pro-life.
I mean, it goes on and on. But there's this other part of me wondering if it isn't the news media pulling this story out of their butts because they themselves are sexist and are simply perpetuating the myth that women can't make rational descisions. You know "Women are voting for McCain because they're angry and emotional." When in actuallity there are very few woman like that. I'd like to hope anyway.
I read your post twice trying to find the punch line
Actually you are hurting your beliefs and your candidate
Hillary has called for her supporters to put their support behind Obama's campaign which most have done. Basically you are going to hurt the democratic party
The Punch Line Is
I've read several articles during this election from that "angry white man" thing, and that other one where a woman was complaining about women going goo-goo for Obama which suggested that "women cannot make rational decisions" because they are "too emotional."
And many women argued against it because we found it offensive and stereotypical.
Yet, Clinton supporters who are now supporting McCain are essentially doing just that, making an emotionally based and irrational decision.
I repeat: Clinton supporters who are now supporting McCain.
Are YOU a Clinton supporter who is now supporting McCain?
I've read you posts, and it seems to me that you are not a Clinton supporter who is now supporting McCain. I haven't said anything about Clinton supporters who aren't supporting McCain because I have no qualms, issues or substantial disagreement about it. I can see how someone might not vote for Obama because they don't think he has enough experience. I personally think he does.
John McCain is as good for
John McCain is as good for women as being stuck in a room full of barbed wire is good for a blind man.
End of story.
I've had a drop to drink.
But ANYONE who was going to vote for Hillary Clinton but is now going to vote for McCain, out of spite or for any reason whatsoever.... the very idea makes me want to scream. Hillary herself has basically, actually quite literally come out and said PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD VOTE FOR OBAMA UNLESS YOU WANT YOUR COUNTRY TO GO TO HELL IN A FAST CAR, so please listen to the woman. She talks sense. Who here wants a repeat of the last 8 years? please do not be under any delusions that you will not be voting for exactly that if you vote for John McCain. If you do vote McCain and then you're angry that he does NOTHING for gay rights, NOTHING for women's rights and causes more meaningless deaths to the people of your country and other countries through war, please do not complain, because you should know very well that is exactly what you're voting for, and if you make that choice, you will have to live with it. For 4 to 8 years. So think very hard before you do.
Oh my God!
And I thought European politics are ridiculous. But this whole "I'm going to vote for McCain because I'm pissed about Hillary not being the Democratic nominee." thing really hits the jackpot.
To all you Clinton and Obama supporters who love to get at each other's throats:
You're behaving like little children in a huff.
Dear European American Chick Democratics....
I'm firmly ensconced in Mr. Obama's corner but if you are hell bent on voting against Barack Obama in a fit of politico-feministic revenge against the Democratic party, why not vote for the Green Party's Cynthia McKinney?
-She's a consistant supporter of reproductive rights
-She supports gay adoptions and constitutional amendments for equal rights by gender
-She's always indicated a pro-gay rights stance
-She's supported funding for women owned businesses
-She's openly criticized the huge monetary discrepency between education and defense budgets (30B and 700B respectively)....
Just Google her and check her stances on the rest of the issues. Apparently she's closer ideologically to Clinton than McCain is. Hopefully the fact that she's an American of African descent won't deter you... or would it?
Please don't act like the down-low racists that brown people think you have the capacity to be and side with your white male counterpart (Read: McCain), in essence shooting yourselves in the foot, just because you think a Black Man stole Hilary's birth right. Stop, take a valium, think about reality for a second, and you'll see that you're making a mistake.
Peace
Cynthia McKinney
Thank you for offering an issues based alternative.
In previous times I have joined various parties - Democratic, Independent and Green. Because of what the Bush/Cheney administration has done to the country these past several years, I have rejoined the dems. While removing our military from Iraq and redeploying the money that goes into it back home is a big issue for me, the gutting of our Constitution is of the greatest concern. The Bush/Cheney administration continues to act as if they are above the law, and that is treachery. I do not trust McCain to restore The Bill of Rights or anything else in keeping with American democracy. He has sided with most of whatever Bush has wanted along with the rest of the Republican party.
I'm supporting Obama, but McKinney is a much better choice for the sake of democracy than McCain.
While I'm all for a real
While I'm all for a real discussion of why folks are voting for McCain, I have to say I'm getting tired of all the "not voting Obama=racist" talk. I had to sit through it during a primary season that was way too long, I have to sit through it every time talk of the general election comes up, and it needs to stop. Sure, there's some racisim out there. I mean, there's a reason Obama was taking 90% or more of the black vote in every primary and that black voters who haven't voted in ages were suddenly registering for this election. But let's get passed that and talk about all of the issues on the table and who's going to deal with them in the best manner. Personally, I don't vote for the party, I vote for the person. Unfortunately, I'm in the south. Due to the electoral college, my vote (unless it's Republican) is going to be thrown out at the end of the day. And I still don't know who I'm going to vote for (may go Libertarian just to be contrary). It's really all going to come down to who I think will do the better overall job, and that encompasses a lot more than just women's and gay rights.
By the by, I like the sound of this lady. I'd take your endorsment of her much more seriously if you didn't make not voting for her automatically equal racist. That actually turned me off of her just because I'm so sick to death of hearing it.
hmm...
I'm sorry that you can so easily be turned on or off of a candidate and have your mind changed because of what somebody else said without taking the the time to delve more deeply. You really just gave me a LOT of power over your personal decisions. And thats something that many people, (not just women, though thats who we're talking about here) have done in this election.
Apparently I didn't articulate my idea well enough. For that I also apologize. These people that are threatening to vote for mccain because clinton did not win are ignorant and fearful. The change that they wanted and stood for wasn't the change we as a collective group were able to move forward with. So they immediately turned back to the "normal" Euro-American male paradigm that someone on this thread mentioned we have had 232 years of. They say they are making this decision because they are feminists and would rather see a viable woman in the white house than a man. Enter Cynthia McKinney. She's a woman. And a viable one at that. These people, the feminists that they are, could have said they were going to vote for McKinney, but that isn't what they've said, is it? They have said that since we can't vote the woman we wanted into office we are going to vote for the Euro-American MAN instead; even though he's threatening to take away hard fought rights that were handed to us from a previous generation.
Now, as an American of African decent what am I supposed to think when I see a huge number of people say they would rather vote for a Euro-American man that would make moves to reverse landmark decisions, than a)the African-American man that was nearly identical to the candidate they most wanted and b) the African-American woman that is closer to the candidate they most wanted than is the Euro-American man they have turned to? And all under the guise of feminism?!
Phfft. Whatever.
Maybe it's not a racist decision. But it definitely seems to be a decision born out of ignorance and fear of aesthetic change.
Both candidates need vetting
I'm particularly saddend by the recent death of Tim Russert. One of the few visible reporters who intensely questioned political players of both parties. I admit I favored Clinton as the presidential candidate, but I admire both Obama and McCain as honorable men. The thing is that as political candidates they both seem to be getting passes by the press and perhaps by voters. Both are darlings of the press. But McCain, though he is a sort of Republican rebel, is nevertheless quite conservative, people forget this even though he really doesn't hide it. Obama on the otherhand, gives very inspirational speeches but seems short on concrete, practical plans and ideas...And he can be a bit elitist. I worry about him in the general election against McCain, though he will get my vote. (And I don't think that he unfairly took the nomination... poor planning and Bill Clinton probably did more damage around the time of the SC primaries)
-A
You want plans
Anna Quindlen says it best.
Congrats, Senator Obama, from one of those middle-aged white women who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Everyone is suggesting you'd better pay close attention to us, especially since we're used to being chronically overlooked, and we're more than a little steamed about that fact. I agree completely, although not for the reasons you're hearing elsewhere.
...
The idea that we will illustrate our disappointment by voting Republican is just another insulting suggestion that we're all emotional nut bars. Ever since the GOP sold out to the right wing, which sees women as a service industry for men, it has been no friend to us. This is the party that brought us Clarence Thomas even after Anita Hill testified; tried to neuter the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; held up approval of over-the-counter emergency contraception, and even put a guy on a commission for reproductive health who believes prayer is the way to deal with PMS. (Please, God, deliver him from the reach of my strong right hook.) Senator McCain himself opposes legal abortion and acknowledging the role of women in combat; progressive women's groups have long tagged him as weak on workplace bias and equal-pay guarantees. His likely Supreme Court appointees would mirror all that.
It would be silly for us to blame you for the cable blah-blahgers who were so negative about Senator Clinton. If she'd invented fire, they would have accused her of pyromania. You, by contrast, have been gracious in acknowledging her contributions as she bowed out. But you did have your moments. Along with your giving up cigarettes, may I suggest that you never again refer to a grown female reporter as "sweetie"?
After all, you know what it's like to be stereotyped. When you were accused during this campaign of being elitist—because good old egalitarian America isn't nearly as happy as one might hope when a black man gets a chance to go Ivy League—you could have responded, "Funny, that's not what cabdrivers who won't pick me up at night seem to think." You didn't do that, just as Senator Clinton didn't make much of the pitfalls of gender assumptions. Both of you understood the power-structure rules for the formerly disenfranchised. Push, and you're pushy. Demand, and you're demanding. No complaining allowed.
But here's the great thing about your position now: since you're obviously not female, you can openly complain on our behalf. You can channel your grandmothers, who had no opportunities, and your mother, who had few, and your wife, who because of the newest wave of feminism suddenly had many. You could even acknowledge the anger and frustration that women of a certain age, who have sat in the assistant's seat watching younger men promoted over them, felt when they saw what seemed to be the same thing happening to Senator Clinton.
We are the ones who wind up dealing with health care for our children and elder care for our parents. We are the ones fighting for sexual-harassment safeguards and workplace standards. Those are not issues on which John McCain has been passionate, and gender equity is not something with which he's ever been associated. This is an opportunity for you, not just an obligation.
Don't get comfy because older women are moving your way in new polls. And don't think you can coast on the fact that the Republicans are going to show their true colors by attacking your wife, thereby driving into the Democratic camp every woman enraged by the hands-folded, mouth-shut standard of female behavior. You've insisted you're running not to govern a demographic but to inspire a nation of individuals. Prove it. The real reason you have to reach out to women like us is that it will signal that you really mean to stand for a different America, a nation in which a black man can take up the concerns of white women for the sake of the greatest good.
...
Most candidates who want the women's vote try to get it without ever really talking honestly about what it's like to be female in America. Instead there are cutesy labels: soccer moms, security moms, minimizing names for political Polly Pockets. Talk instead about equal pay, universal child care, reproductive rights, the women warriors in Iraq, the empty purses of the working class. This is a moment when you and yours will be tempted to run a race just like any other, slicing and dicing the country and then cherry-picking parts. Don't give in to the omnipresent fear of engaging in complexities. A man who can speak eloquently about all the ways in which women carry this country in their arms and all the ways government can help them do so would represent real change. For many American women, Hillary was their surrogate. You have a chance to be their champion. Don't blow it.
Newsweek June 23, 2008: The Last Word ~ Attention Must Be Paid
Something is fishy
Women who would vote for Hillary because she is a woman are on the same par as people who would vote for Obama because he is African-American. Or people who would vote for McCain because they couldn't vote for a person of color or a woman.
Another example of how Obama might have been right in his "bitter" speech. Here are people who seem to be completely ignoring the real issues and voting on superficial issues. Not only superficial; but, shit we should have gotten over years ago.
Do you not trust the govt. to represent you or meet your needs? Or do you not have the mental capacity to make an informed decision about the real issues that are going to affect your life?
I also suspect that a lot of these women who are going to vote for McCain aren't really democrats. They just voted democrat in the primary because a woman was running.
A true Democrat voting for McCain doesn't make any logical sense.
The fact that candidates are parading their wives around is disheartening. If Obama or McCain choose a woman as their VP, I'm going to have a hard time believing they are doing it for the good of the country and not just to get votes.
It also seems a bit selfish. So basically, some will write in their vote for Hillary to make a statement. We all know that if this happens then McCain will win.
So they have no problem voting against the best interests of the country and themselves just to make a point. Just shows that they don't care about anybody but themselves; actually shows that they don't care about themselves.
Again, this is more proof that popular vote elections are a bad idea.
It's the trout
But seriously, I wouldn't hold it against anyone if they voted for Cynthia McKinney.
.....
Just so long as no one holds it against me for voting for Nader in 2000.
Oh yes I did.
I don't see how voting Green is any different than writing in Clinton. If McCain wins by narrow margin, they'll have to live with it....just like I have to live with Bush winning in 2000. Your results may vary.
Hillary Clinton Is not dead
Sen. Clinton is still very much in politics. Just because she lost this campaign, don't think her involvement in politics is over. If you ever really supported her in the first place, voting for McCain is stabbing her in the back. Clinton needs a President who is on the same side of the issues that she is fighting for, and in case you hadn't noticed the Bush/Cheney administration has given her hell along with most of the other Democrats.
Before the 2006 elections the Republicans had a stranglehold on the Congress, the Executive branch and the Judicial branch. The concept of checks and balances went out the window. Much of The Bill of Rights within the US Constitution went out the window. The Fourth Estate, that other important part of the equation of checks and balances, was severely homogenized and propaganidized by the Executive branch. This was unfortunatley due to deregulation of the media by the FCC. A huge misstep by former President Clinton.
Sen. Clinton is still a senator. She may run for the senate again. She may run for Governor of New York. She might want a cabinet post or to be placed on the Supreme Court. She's got lots of options. If you really support Hillary Clinton, then don't make her future harder by supporting a candidate for President who is so opposed to her own stances on so many issues.
third option
HRC in 2012
put it another way, in the U.S., for over 2 centuries consecutively – – 47% of the population make life & death decisions for 100% of the population.
... it’s funny. i thought “feminism” meant fairness, “giving the woman the benefit of the doubt” or “opening up male-bastions for women to take a turn and give it a shot.”
i guess i was asleep when they changed it to “doing whatever you want that feels good and call it feminism because you’re a woman doing whatever you want that feels good.”
because being a feminist means never having to say sorry for bravely jumping from a woman-helmed boat to a man-helmed boat. even when the two boats were pretty much exactly alike.
so … now? 236 years. and counting.
maybe i will check off Cynthia McKinney’s name. at least then i’ll still feel good about who i'm voting for. what’s that? a throwaway vote that’ll endanger BO’s ascendancy? naw, just getting with the new feminists program. another woman bravely doing whatever she wants.
feminist icon Erica Jong states it more far eloquently than I could:
"Women ... have not gone far enough, because we indulge our fathers, husbands, brothers, sons. Also we feel sorry for them because they are led around by their d*** and their brains go soft... we know they're testosterone-driven.
[Many women] ... think Sex and the City proves the sex war is won. Actually, they just don't know how tough it is when you no longer have young and cute to fall back on. Talking dirty is fun but it's hardly freedom.
Any smart woman knows that the world is designed for the benefit of men, no matter how men whine about it.
Feminism ebbs and flows. What saddens me is that young women have to re-invent the wheel again and again. Mary Wollstonecraft said it. Susan B. Anthony said it. Simone deBeauvoir said it. Germaine Greer said it. Gloria Steinem said it. I said it. But nobody believes it until they live it! We could learn from our foremothers, but since we have repudiated their wisdom, we must keep beginning over. The real answer is to trust older women. The generations must nurture and support each other. That's the only answer."
-Erica Jong
From Interview with Erica Jong
http://www.ericajong.com/interviewwitherica.htm
See Hillary vs. the Patriarchy, by Erica Jong
The Washington Post, 2/4/08.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020303194.html
politics is about faith. voters know full well that promises do not equal guarantees. we know our candidates have flaws, but pick who we have most faith in. so we argue & argue & still don't see eye to eye.
this is what i see: after 1 year on the national scene, BO's female faithfuls are legion and unquestioning. after 16 years of knowing her, however, having a little faith in HRC was more than many women could bear.
but wait, the salt-in-the-wound's just an appetizer, here's a kicker entree: BO supporters pre-primary win: 'BO is waay different from HRC.' BO supporters today: 'hey, be reasonable, BO is not much different from HRC.'
it's puzzling how we women -- so unalterably often -- are The Very Last to entrust faith to our own potential.
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, who am I? If not now, when?"
Wow, these comments have
Wow, these comments have really taken on a life of their own....
The main issue here is that McCain is NOT an alternative to Hillary Clinton! There is NO solid arguement that if you supported Clinton, McCain is the next best choice. If you look at ANY major campaign issue - the economy, the war, health care, etc, etc, etc McCain and Clinton were on OPPOSITE sides.
It frankly does not matter that Hillary Clinton is a woman. I am a staunch feminist who would LOVE to cast a vote for a female president in my lifetime. But I did not support Hillary. I found her to be insincere in her campaigning and out of synch with some of my core beliefs. However, had she been the nominee, I WOULD have supported her because she and Obama are MUCH MORE similar with regard to their stances on all the important issues than either one of them is to McCain.
Any smart feminist knows that the answer is not "Any Woman For President" - what if Ann Coulter ran for president? Should I vote for her even though I disagree with her on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE? Of course not! Absolutely absurd.
On Gay Rights, McCain is awful. On Women's Rights, McCain is awful.
Meanwhile, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have NEARLY IDENTICAL stances on all Gay and Women's issues.
On all other major campaign issues - the economy, the war, healthcare, etc etc etc - Clinton and Obama are relatively similar when compared with McCain whose stances are VERY far to the right.
And don't even get me started on the Supreme Court.... If McCain is elected, the chances of Roe v Wade being overturned in our lifetime skyrocket. And a country where we as women cannot make our own decisions about our health is not one I want to live in.
----------------------------------------
http://feministhousewife.wordpress.com
Republican Shnanigans
This concept sounds like something that the Republican party made up and publicized to make it sound like McCain appeals to moderate-liberal women. They are hoping that women who hear this story are like, "Really, John McMain is the women's vote? Well, I'm a woman I guess I'll vote for him."
A lame tactic that won't get very far, in my opinion.
John McCain is bad for everyone...
except the same war criminals, oil pushers and religious charlatans who profit so nicely during Republican regimes.
I was originally an Edwards supporter, but, you don't see us abandoning the Democratic party just because we didn't get our way.
Go Obama!!!
apparently obama will have
apparently obama will have a lot of work to do to keep those disinfranchised hillary voters from john mccain. No I don't think john mccain has done anything in his political career to advance women. I disagree with his stand on abortion, sorry bub you don't have a utreus so you can't tell me what to do with mine. Also , this is the same situation president kennedy had with the blacks' civil rights movement. kennedy did not have segregation and black rights on the forfront of his presidential agenda. I think during his campaign he steered clear of it. same deal present day with our rights and obama. Like kennedy he is not agianst us however we are not on the forfront of his agenda. Also, in califorina it was the popular vote of the people who are agianst same-sex marriage out voted those who are for it. the california appeals court which rightfully granted us the right to marry. I am sure it pissed off a lot of christians and conservatives. If obama makes legilizing same-sex marriage a strong part of his campiagn , then that would turn away a lot of middle american votes he needs to win. mccain is ralling up the evengelical voters. as well as the religoius voter which a good percentage of middle america. Obama has actively recruite for glbt interns in the white house and apart of his campaign. we will definatly have our day.right now strategically the canidates are dealing with the issues americans are asking for : the souring economy---national security-----iraq/afganistand---