Feminists and McCain
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist, I wasn’t the only one thrilled to hear Republican John McCain announce Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. For the GOP, she bridges for conservatives and independents what I term “the enthusiasm gap” for the ticket. For Democrats, she offers something even more compelling – a chance to vote for a someone who is her own woman, and who represents a party that, while we don’t agree on all the issues, at least respects women enough to take them seriously.
Whether we have a D, R or an “i for independent” after our names, women share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise. But with the Palin nomination, maybe they’ll realize it’s not up to them any longer.
Clinton voters, in particular, have received a political wake-up call they never expected. Having watched their candidate and their principles betrayed by the very people who are supposed to be the flame-holders for equal rights and fairness, they now look across the aisle and see a woman who represents everything the feminist movement claimed it stood for. Women can have a family and a career. We can be whatever we choose, on our own terms. For some, that might mean shooting a moose. For others, perhaps it’s about shooting a movie or shooting for a career as a teacher. However diverse our passions, we will vote for a system that allows us to make the choices that best suit us. It’s that simple.
The rank bullying of the Clinton candidacy during the primary season has the distinction of simply being the first revelation of how misogynistic the party has become. The media led the assault, then the Obama campaign continued it. Trailblazer Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first Democratic vice presidential candidate, was so taken aback by the attacks that she publicly decried nominee Barack Obama as “terribly sexist” and openly criticized party chairman Howard Dean for his remarkable silence on the obvious sexism.
The campaign’s chauvinistic attitude was reflected in the even more condescending Democratic National Convention. There, the Obama camp made it clear it thought a Super Special Women’s Night would be enough to quell the fervent support of the woman who had virtually tied him with votes and was on his heels with pledged delegates.
There was a lot of pandering and lip service to women’s rights, and evenings filled with anecdotes of how so many have been kept from achieving their dreams, or failed to be promoted, simply because they were women. Clinton’s “18 million cracks in the glass ceiling” were mentioned a heck of a lot. More people began to wonder, though, how many cracks does it take to break the thing?
Ironically, all this at an event that was negotiated and twisted at every turn in an astounding effort not to promote a woman. (Emphasis original)
Tagged with: 2008 Election • Barack Obama • Democrats • Feminism • Hillary Clinton • John McCain • sarah palin
Filed under: Democrats • Politics • Tom
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
In the shadow of the blatant and truly stunning sexism launched against the Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, and as a pro-choice feminist
I would have to believe that these sorts of votes are rare. What does it say about a person who would support Clinton and then switch to McCain because he chose a woman running mate – but one who was diametrically opposed to Clinton’s positions on many if not most issues? That that person is only voting for her because of her gender??
Or that they were only supporting Clinton because of her gender?
I don’t think many voters are as shallow as all that. If someone supports a candidate, you would think that the voter supports them because of their position, not their gender. For those (and let’s hope it’s extremely few) who WOULD vote for a candidate based solely on their gender, shame on them.
Dan,
You’re talking about my mother.
She is (a lifelong liberal) and is not voting on gender alone. She grew to despise Mr Obama during his campaign against Clinton and now supports McCain.
?
That astounds me.
WHAT did she like about Clinton?
Her position on Bush policies? They mirror Obama’s and contrast with McCain’s.
Her position on abortion? Her position on the environment? On energy?
Down the line, Clinton’s policies come much closer to aligning with Obama’s and sharply contrast with McCain’s.
What has she grown to despise so that she’s willing to disregard her liberal positions and embrace the candidate who is the antithesis of her positions?
Has she forsaken her beliefs or is this a protest vote? And, if so, what about Obama has caused her to want to protest enough to vote for the guy who represents the opposite of what she believes?
Dan,
That astounds you. What is astounding is that you can make blanket claims about the motivations of other voters.
Largely her move, I think, is because the acidic nature of the primary fight between Clinton and Obama really turned her off to Obama personally and politically. She is in a position where she will under no circumstances vote for Obama … and McCain is centrist enough that she can vote for him.
There are a lot of PUMAs out there. To ascribe a single (uncharitable) motivation to them all, you realize is in itself very uncharitable.
I’m not at all trying to ascribe a motivation, I’m just saying I can’t understand what else it could be. That’s why I’m asking you – what is your mom’s motivation?
Obama was not acidic towards Clinton – not any more than Clinton was towards him. What did he say that she finds acidic that was different than anything Clinton said about him?
And EVEN IF she did not like the way he handled himself, what about her values? How can she ignore the policies she supports which I would imagine McCain does not support?
I can understand not liking Obama and not wanting to vote for him. I can’t understand voting for someone who is antithetical to your positions because you don’t like how someone campaigned. That does not make any sense to me.
What I am wanting to know is: WHAT is the reasoning there?
I can’t imagine there being a significant percentage of people out there who liked Clinton’s positions who will end up voting for McCain. That does not make any logical sense.
Even if you don’t like the way that Obama has campaigned (like an extreme gentleman and statesman, it seems to me, compared to most campaigns).
Meryl Yourish, former Democrat and still pro-choice, lays out one of the reasons why she’s voting Republican this time around in this post here. And the podcast I contribute to (Shire Network News) will have a segment from her on this subject as well. (4-letter-word warning: Meryl often lets it fly.) I’ll have a segment on Palin as well. Should be out today or tomorrow.
She says:
The fact is, it’s 2008, and it’s about d***ed time a woman was a member of at least one of the two national presidential tickets.
So, she’s voting for her because she’s a woman and one’s views be d****ed?
That was my original posit. That, and that I find it hard to believe that many people will vote for a woman merely because she’s a woman (as shameful as it is that we still haven’t had a woman in the White House).
I wills say that Yourish was going to vote for McCain anyway, and was, in fact, thrilled with the opportunity to do so. She switched to the Republican party a while ago (a “9/11 Democrat”), so perhaps she’s not the best example of what Mark was talking about; Democrats voting Republican for the first time for this election.
So the primary reason for her vote this year is McCain, but Palin wound up being the icing on the cake. She’s not voting Republican on the Palin pick alone, not by a long shot. My main reason for noting this was that she decided this even though the ticket doesn’t completely represent her view 100%, as Mark was noting.
Dan,
Look at the four issues you mention.
Abortion. Mr Obama’s position is extreme, he supports partial birth abortion (and arguably beyond with his “if born alive accidentally … the baby must be allowed to die”. That and his “children as punishment” are both positions which (should) bother a lot of reasonable pro-choice people.
Environment, which these days is largely code for CO2 and global warming. On this (alas for my personal POV) there is no difference between any of the candidates.
Energy. Well, until recently both Obama and McCain backed blocking ANWAR and McCain only differed in that he wanted to let states decide on expansion of off-shore drilling. Lately I think McCain has rethought ANWAR (especially with Palin’s addition to the ticket). But drilling here, may hurt your personal view on CO2 but it may help to allay gas prices. Who will high gas prices hurt the most? (hint: the poor).
Finally, as for “Obama the statesman” I think the slanderous attacks on Palin, such as “not her baby” and today’s Palin is a pig remarks and so on show that if you believe “he is a gentleman” that’s just because you’ve got your Obama/blinders on.
The “environment” is a code word for global warming? Hate to break it to you, but there’s much more to environmental concern than one topic.
I’m not sure that you are right on any of your four points above, Mark. It seems to be your take on things, perhaps influenced by your own partisan leanings, moreso than a factual representation of reality.
Obama is not “for” any sort of abortion – not in any statements or platform that I’ve read.
The environment covers all sorts of issues – clean water, clean air, sustainable living, peak oil, agribusiness practices, on and on and on.
And yes, Obama has been AT LEAST as respectful as any of the other candidates. Perhaps not a whole lot more, but at least as respectful.
Perhaps I’m not the one blindered?
THIS is sort of what I expect to see continue:
“In CNN/Opinion Research Corporation polls, Barack Obama was losing white women before the conventions, and he’s losing them now,” CNN Polling Director Keating Holland said. “His problems with this important voting bloc didn’t start when Sarah Palin joined the GOP ticket.”
Dan,
Mr Obama “at least as respectful”? Today he called Sarah Palin a pig. What has she done that compares? Or McCain?
Dan,
Well, my mother didn’t “leave the ticket” after Ms Palin was named, she left the ticket when Ms Clinton conceded.
And I note Doug doesn’t think Mr Obama was referring to Ms Palin as a pig (although I think that if you think Mr Obama is half as smart and clever as most do, that he likely did … and that apparently from the reaction of the audience they also did too).
However, it might be that in the vernacular of the phrase “lipstick on a pig” the pig in question is McCain … however that still doesn’t seem very high minded.
It does not sound like he called her a pig. At all.
He said, “you can put lipstick on a pig, and it’s still a pig.” He said that AFTER talking about McCain’s claim to be an agent of change (“ooh, me too! Me too!”) in spite of the fact that he’s behind Bush on nearly every point. You can call McCain an “agent of Change,” but that is like putting lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig.
THAT’s what he said.
What have McCain/Palin done? She belittled hundreds of thousands of community organizers across the land (“I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.”).
Palin mocked his efforts to encourage more sustainable living and flat out lied about increasing the size of gov’t by taxing everyone (“What exactly is our opponent’s plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he’s done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer is to make the government bigger and take more of your money.”)
In short, they’ve engaged in the sort of divisive politics that Karl Rove mastered. The kind of stuff that Obama has offered an alternative to. Yes, Obama criticizes their policy plans and their claims (like their claims to be the candidates of change!) and he may do it with humor. But he has not been any worse than Clinton, McCain or anyone else and I’d suggest a good deal better than Palin and most of the Republicans last week (McCain was actually pretty well-behaved last week).
my mother didn’t “leave the ticket” after Ms Palin was named, she left the ticket when Ms Clinton conceded.
But WHY? Was she supporting Hillary because of her positions? If so, how does a vote for McCain (and against all those positions) help?