There is a view about that a certain demographic in the Democratic party (“older women”) maybe…well, emotionally upset over Hillary’s loss—sufficiently that they can’t be enthusiastic for Obama.It is easy to understand how demographic alignments in this campaign hardened along lines of gender, ethnicity and age. This was not (for the most part) in a negative way but in a positive way, with individuals naturally seeing the candidate they most identify with, a woman or relatively young black man, as best reflecting their own image of the party’s consensus for change. Physiological differences between the final two candidates became so important because, outside of arguments about judgment/experience on the one hand and electability on the other (highly dubious issues to resolve with confidence), the only clear objective difference between the candidates was gender, ethnicity and age. Debates between them were like watching the tedious separation of thin layers of an onion, as semantic wars strained the natural limits of words to parse, often to the point of becoming humorous.
While everyone could, of course, articulate an intellectual, philosophical or practical reason for supporting their candidate, it cannot be doubted that choice in both camps was often influenced by simple identification—the human mind, male or female, being a powerful engine for rationalization. It is easy to understand how supporters on both sides became so emotionally invested. Real bitterness in a close defeat was inevitable for someone.
In switching from nomination to election, however, the terms of the debate are completely altered and a new mindset required. The policy differences between the two candidates now at issue are a chasm requiring no parsing and would not be materially different were Hillary the Democratic candidate. At stake is the integrity of our Constitution, health care, national competitiveness, energy security and independence, education, the global environment, and how we conduct ourselves in the world as a nation (cooperative consensus building partner of other nations or go-it-alone gun slinging superpower). Our freedoms, prosperity and security are very much in issue. Failure to reject recent foreign policy is to ratify that policy and project it to the world as a credible representation of this nation’s character, form and values. Nothing could be more damaging at this juncture.
But there is something else at stake here that goes to the heart of the disappointment many women are feeling. The party chose with great difficult between two different personas projecting essentially the same message of change. Even in their differences though, they are the same, both being nontraditional leadership figures. The fact that the final contest was between these two candidates is momentous and evidence that we are making progress as a nation or at least as a party toward fulfilling our Nation’s founding values; toward reason and away from prejudice. But either nomination would represent a great gamble. We can debate whether Obama’s color was positive or a negative in the primary but there can be little doubt that if he were white, this race would essentially be over now. If he loses, it will be in part because he is black. Certainly it will be seen that way and therefore a consequence of nominating a nontraditional candidate, as it would also be if Hillary had been the nominee and were to fail. If that is the outcome how long will it be before any party repeats the experiment?
Thinking women are not going to overlook this. If the right black man can be elected President of the United States, then so can the right woman. You can’t pop just one part of a flawed mindset, it either all explodes or none of it does. “Electability” need never again be a magic word for instantly erasing otherwise qualified candidacies on account of ethnicity or gender. The party has chosen between two leaders whose very physiology symbolizes change, in order to better make change in policy. Electing a black man (or a woman) President of the United States stamps “CHANGE” as a mandate with a force and clarity that cannot be ignored. The closeness of the nomination makes it clear that the Democratic Party is now willing to nominate women as well as people of color to any office in the land. Winning this race is necessary to validate that decision.
We (you) need to win this, gals. While women are not monolithic in their politics, within the various segments of the gender there is a certain sisterhood. If thinking women decide they really want Obama to win, he will win. Women are going to prove more than enthusiastic, not only because of the criticality of the issues but also because another glass ceilings is about to be broken and thinking women love hearing glass ceilings breaking. I certainly hope so because I have a new granddaughter. Maggee will make a great President but it would be a shame if she is the first of her gender and that might be about the right timing for another try if we don’t win this race.
P.S. Please forward this to any thinking women you know and if you click on the photo above Maggee's qualification for office will become more apparent.
25 comments:
I do no think this article is going to change any woman’s mind. In fact it might irritate some if they think someone is implying that if Barack loses it is because of their lack of enthusiasm.
NS - Please expand your mind and acknowledge female intelligence.
It usually is irritating when someone points out that you are being unreasonable. This is reminisent of the Green Party's attitude that it is the candidate's fault if he losses without your support?!
As voters we have to take responsibility and women need to be careful not to be sexist. When your politics turns entirely upon a candidate's sex, what is that?
Sounds like herding cats to me...
old joe
Lemme think about this; Bruce thinks Hillary and Barack are virtually the same, except for physiology. Bruce thinks some "older women" might be not supporting Barack because of their disappointment. Bruce thinks we all have too much at stake and should support Barack. Bruce has a new grandbaby, a girl, and he thinks it might happen that if Barack fails to get elected, decades will pass before non-white, non-male, candidates will get to the top of the nomination heap.
Thinking women know all these things, Bruce and a bit more. Thinking women know that they have Power with a capital "P" in this election, and thinking women will use that "P" word, to their advantage. Chill out, Bruce, change some diapers. BTW, it's nice to see the gal's swaddled in something besides pink, a color known to produce passivity. Sign that girl up for tot tai kwan do.
I'm soooo glad I didn't eat breakfast prior to reading this post. Bruce's flawed mindset, dismisses the 55 years between Amendments 13, 14, 15 and the 19th.
Bruce is still just one more white male suffering from the delusion that women still need instructions on how to think and vote. The irritating, guilt provoking politics, implication here, n.s. is that unless women vote for Obama, we're not thinking and what's worse, we might disappoint some men.
What could cost Barack the election, is his waiting game with McCain over the v.p. selection. If McCain puts a woman on the ticket first, especially, pro-choice Condie Rice, it's pretty much over for Barack because even if Obama chooses a woman, it plays like "catch up" politics rather than power politics; second, a female Repub. v.p. like Condie, splits the white women's vote, the black women's vote, and the black man's vote.
Stop with the condescending nagging of "disappointed women". Amaze yourself with ideas about how you can single-handedly protect your new granddaughter from the mind numbing sexism of old white guys.
I agree we must all get behind Obama. I do not agree that Hillary and Barack have the same message, are essentially the same politically, or would bring about the same changes to our country. I see Hillary as being more center, more status quo, and not representing the drastic change I feel we need. I agree they are nontraditional in the sense that they are not white males.
I was an Obama supporter from the beginning but would have been okay with Hillary winning the nomination until she exhibited characteristics of being what I interpreted as over-reactionary, bitter, and downright rude during the primaries. I think Bill may have given her some bad advice. I also wondered if she was over-manhandling some of the situations to appear to be tough when a more delicate hand could have benefited her campaign.
As far as Obama’s chances of winning the whole kit n caboodle, I think he can run circles around John McCain on the issues and that the only way McCain could possibly win is if the RNC succeeds in convincing +50% of this undereducated country that Obama is a Muslim (not that his religion should affect his ability to lead the country – no president should let his religious beliefs impact the roles and responsibilities of the presidency, obviously, but for some people, their private beliefs cannot be separated from their public jobs – but that’s a different conversation). As I believe the people of this country are tired of the RNCs last-minute manipulation of their fears and emotions (with swiftboat tactics, gay marriage and abortion issues, for example), I am hoping they will not fall for these types of diversions this time around. Therefore, in my opinion, this race is essentially over.
No love lost on Hillary for me. I’d rather see a woman make it to the top on her own and not on the coattails of her husband, anyway. I think she may have been a better leader than he was if she had been the one in the driver’s seat. Although she would surely have made many others, she certainly wouldn’t have made the same mistakes he made, which so damaged the Clinton image.
Now, whether this is an indication of my mindset (I’ve always called myself an Equalist, not a Feminist – how can a feminist be for equality? Sounds like a feminist believes in female superiority, not equality – but again, that’s another conversation and no, I didn’t live through the 60s) and I identify more with men than women or my support for Obama was solely inspired by the grips my mother had on the Time bearing his face on the cover the week she died, the fact remains that he’s my candidate now because he is the most intelligent, rational, calm, cool & collected person to lead this country past the depths of hell in which we are currently wallowing.
In essence, I would not vote for someone just because of their sex, race, or religion (or lack thereof). Although, I do believe that our country is better off with more women involved in running it because I think they’re more sensitive to the needs of the people and are less cold-hearted about doing whatever is best for the bottom line $.
-Nic
I'm with Charlotte on this one....Obama has waited too long to pick the right VP ticket and I for one am gett'n more pissed by the day that he's acting more and more like a typical ass-whipe, male politician! I can't BELIEVE his wife has not bitch slapped him every evening when he gets home....or has she????? Now THAT would be what the "Thinking Woman" (his wife) should be doing to not "disappoint" all of us who all ready have been disappointed by his waivering actions....
nic said:
"tired of the RNCs last-minute manipulation of their fears and emotions (with swiftboat tactics, gay marriage and abortion issues, for example), I am hoping they will not fall for these types of diversions this time around."
This post from Bruce was exactly that kind of manipulation, only flip-flopped for liberals. Trembling in his boots over the potential Supreme Court appointments futher eroding womens choice regarding abortion, the environment issues, the war in Iraq, and so on ad nauseum. Yep, all of the above is in play in this election, but it has been in every election.
Is Bruce suggesting that any woman who votes for McCain is a "non-thinking" woman? I am the first to admit that I can very well be unreasonable at times, but I am not about to vote for someone just because of sex, race, etc. I will vote based on whomever I feel is best qualified for the job (granted, anyone could do a better job than Bush), and while I feel Obama was more of the naysayer than Hillary in the primaries, that really has nothing to do with the fact that this registered Independent who typically votes Democrat believes that Obama doesn't have the experience to run this country or make the necessary changes to make it better. All I got from him during the primary race was that he believes himself to be "all that," and to hell with anyone who disagrees. He seems pushy, and to me, that's dangerous. Anyone remember our current president? While I can't say exactly what I will do come election day, I can say that as of right now, Obama will either need to pull of something miraculous or McCain will have to do something really stupid for me to consider voting for Obama. So, Bruce, I hate to disappoint, but thinking women tend to be the ones who vote based on what they actaully think about particular candidates and his/her ability to do the best job possible. Thinking women will get all the facts and wait until necessary to make a final decision. Go THINKING WOMEN!!!
a. earls
TOUCHE......
http://sallyisnotsnoddy.blogspot.com/
The stats are in.....
It depends on whether you view your own sex as a separate species or not. If not then the very real problems alluded to in the essay that effect all of us are more important than which sex is on the ticket.
I have enjoyed reading these comments. Many are very different, as you might imagine, from what I get sent to me. They reveal interesting mindsets, most of which can be understood, in many cases admired. I hesitate to respond, not being interested in promoting discord but the opposite but I must take exception with the idea that raising the issues alluded to in the piece is a liberal flip side of RNC fear mongering. The issues alluded to are real issues of public policy that require resolution at the national level, not exaggerations or straw-man issues or issues that don’t legitimately involve public policy but individual morality or if they do are not federal but local in nature. The Republican Party has made an art form of manipulating certain voter’s beliefs, fears and prejudices as a means to power. Power then used to exploit these very same people. It is a cynical and corrupt form of self serving special interest politics that is entirely reprehensible and without precedent on the national level until relatively recently.
Some, of course, think the Republican Party has the answer to these problems. My thoughts were intended for persons who don’t accept that to be true but would have preferred Hillary as their candidate, in part at least because she is a she. As valid and understandable as that desire may have been, it simply cannot, in my view, rationally serve as a basis to fail the party and the country when so much else hangs in the balance. All the more so when the party has gone out on this limb, one very nearly identical to the one Hillary supporters were urging it to climb out on with her, in nominating someone other than a white male. To fail to support that action is counterproductive to the shared goal of opening the doors of political participation. That is a reality, not an opinion. Women who seek greater access to power for their gender lose if Obama loses and the same would have been true with the shoe on the other foot. That may not seem fair but it is reality.
The test is simple. If Hillary had won, would Hillary supporters (you) not be urging disappointed youth and black voters to get behind the Party candidate? In doing so would you not be right? Would they not be losers if her candidacy failed? Would women not complain bitterly about such abandonment, about how we all lost because some people refused to open their minds to see the broader issue at stake? Think about this Charlotte. If you do you will get excited about this race. This is a historic watershed event and a close call between the candidates. If Obama wins, the doors to power in this country will have been thrown wide open to any qualified candidate. Sometimes victory is not obvious, that does not mean you should not embrace it. This glass is way more than half full. People who can’t be happy with something less than a full glass are destined to be unhappy.
Charlotte:
It is true that Supreme Court appointments are always in play. However, if John McCain is allowed to appoint 3 justices to go with the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts, basic human rights, as we have known them will be a thing of the past.
"Thinking women" are aware of all Bruce says; now how are we going to get this message to all the "non-thinking" women AND men!!!!
.....my point remains: women voters already have this figured out; there's a couple of months before the convention and the post smacks of herding behavior males are prone to display around females; women have every right to continue licking their wounds right up until 7 p.m. on election night; this election will not be won singlehandedly by women-and we will not stand to be blamed if the Dems lose in November-there are working class and rural people that have been viciously ridiculed, their intelligence insulted and they don't cotton to his dismissive and elitist demeanor; doors to power are not thrown wide open, they are pryed, kicked and knocked down by determined people; finally, the Dem party DID NOT go out on a limb, the v.o.t.e.r.s quickly made this a two person race, and the statement that Hillary's voters "owe" the party is more manipulative b.s.
I'm amazed that Oil Royalty (pun intended) such as Rove, Bush, and Cheney, and McCain the son of an Admiral get away with labeling Obama an elitist. Obama couldn't even get in their country clubs.
In fairness to Charlotte, the charge that conservatives like to make against democrats is about intellectual not social elitism. You can't accuse the Bush Chaney crowd of the later.
The Republicans sell this mantra because they live off manipulting the emotions of unsophisticated voters, they seek to undermine the legitimacy of intellectual leadership. You could not get a true intellectual to run on the Repubican agenda.
O'bama is a well educated and intellectually inclined man. I think that is an atribute to be looked for in a President. You know, like Clinton (both), Kennedy and Roosevelt. A humbler form of wisdom can work as well, like Truman and lincoln but this idea that the Rebublicans like to sell that we should prefer street wisdom/buffoonery like Bush the younger over someone with a well formed mind has gotten us exactly what you should expect to get.
We may be the only country on the planet where it is seriously urged that one should be disqualifed to national leadership if well educated. Anyone pushing this line is simply feeding at the Republican propoganda trough.
Anon 11:31:
Well spoken. Too bad that disqualifies you for office.
Hillary's coldly calculated vote on the Iraq war, and her unwillingness to accept responsibility for it disappointed me deeply. Still, no one wanted a female president more than I. I supported her with all I had, primarily because she was female, though I wouldn't have supported her had she not been an able leader. I was furious about the way she was treated and the sexism in this country that her candidacy exposed. I was devastated when she lost. I'm angry at Obama for running against her, but I'll vote for him because he's the only candidate with a chance who shares most of my values. Playing out the "Woman Scorned" stereotype with angry rhetoric does not advance the cause of women.
I actually didn't have too much trouble switching over to Obama, I will be perfectly happy with him, still think her health plan was better but lets just pray he wins..................
Vote McCain. He has history on his side. In prehistoric times, some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night
while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known as the Conservative movement.
Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQ's and doing the sewing, fetching, and hair dressing. This was the beginning of the Liberal movement. Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into women. The rest became known as girlie-men.
Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats, the invention of group therapy and group hugs, the evolution of the Hollywood actor, and the concept of Democratic voting to decide how to divide all the meat and beer that conservatives provided.
Over the years, Conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by the jackass.
Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.
Another interesting evolutionary side note: most liberal women have higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group therapists are liberals.
Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide for their women.
Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys, firemen, lumberjacks, construction workers, medical doctors, police officers, corporate executives, athletes, Marines, and generally anyone who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other conservatives who want to work for a living.
Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to govern the producers and decide what to
do with the production. Liberals believe Europeans are more enlightened than Americans.
That is why most of the liberals remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept in after the Wild West was tamed and created a business of trying to get more for nothing.
Inclined to deleate the forgoing response as off topic. However, it serves a useful purpose, dosen't it? Prehistoric pretty well sums it up.
I've seen this going around. Most forwarding it are old white guys who either married or inherited wealth or who are on the public teat. They tended to be bureaucrats or coaches who don't teach or do anything else productive. They have more in common with the Taliban than American patriots.
America is not a mature civilization. It's men in particular tend to remain children. We haven't had to face the horror of the wars we advocate first hand. It may take seeing our country destroyed and then, having to rebuild for some of these little boys to grow up.
Post a Comment