[Updates below]
Rick Klein writes that some Clinton supporters are organizing a “boycott” of the November election and the Dem party if Senator Clinton is not the party’s nominee.
Just talked to a 55-year-old Columbus, Ohio resident named Cynthia Ruccia, a spokesperson and organizer for a group calling itself “Clinton Supporters Count Too.” She said the group — numbering in the hundreds, and organized in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Michigan — stands ready to boycott the Democratic Party if Clinton doesn’t win the nomination, and will work against superdelegates who support Obama over Clinton as a means of registering their displeasure with the party.
“We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee,” the group said in a press release Thursday. “We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don’t listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later.”
Ruccia tells ABC News that she believes “millions” of women share her group’s views, though they have only begun to make contact with like-minded women. They’re disgusted, she said, that Democratic Party leaders haven’t more aggressively denounced sexist media comments and coverage in the campaign, and are angry at the drumbeat for Clinton to get out of the race.
“We’re just at the boiling point,” Ruccia said. “Women will sit back and be quiet about things for a while, but we’ve had enough. Unless Hillary Clinton is our nominee, we are not going to support the nominee.”
There’s no question Senator Clinton has been the target of some hideous sexism, as Libby Copeland documents in today’s Washington Post and Marie Cocco in yesterday’s WaPo. I also think we’ve seen that sexist expression is more socially acceptable in our national political discourse than racist expression, which so far has been heard mostly “on the ground” and not on MSNBC. Sexism has a lot to do with Clinton’s “negatives,” the people who just plain don’t like her and won’t budge from that position no matter what she says or does.
However, there are a few points I think some Clinton supporters are overlooking.
First, just because someone is the victim of sexism doesn’t mean she would make a good President of the United States. Hell, I’ve been a victim of sexism plenty of times, and I think I’d make a terrible POTUS. (Better than the current one, of course, but I’ve seen refrigerator mold that would do better than the current one.)
I get the impression that some older women (disclosure: I am female and 56) are die-hard Clinton supporters because electing her would be glorious payback for the countless indignities they’ve suffered through the years. I can understand how this would be emotionally gratifying, but emotional gratification is not exactly the point of electing a POTUS.
Second, I think some of the vile remarks aimed at Senator Clinton are expressions of dislike about her specifically, not of women generally. The problem is that our national political discourse has become so polluted that many who express dislike of Clinton believe they are supposed to toss in some vulgar personal insults of her. They think it’s expected of them, because it’s the way all public political figures are treated these days.
Third, although sexism trumps racism in national discourse, in voting behavior I believe we’ve seen that racism trumps sexism. As far as voters are concerned, I believe Barack Obama’s race is a bigger handicap than Hillary Clinton’s sex. Yet he has more votes than she does.
Fourth, I think the single biggest reason Hillary Clinton is behind is that her campaign has made huge strategic blunders. On the other hand, while Obama’s campaign has made some tactical goofs, strategically it’s been brilliant. In other words — she’s losing because she’s losing, not because mean old stupid men have taken something she has earned away from her.
Fifth, the fight over seating the Michigan and Florida delegates has nothing to do with sexism. It’s about Clinton trying to pick up a couple of easy wins by gaming the rules. She originally agreed those states’ primaries didn’t count, and only changed her tune when she realized she needed the votes. In Michigan, she agreed not to participate in the primaries but refused to take her name off the ballot, even after Obama and Edwards did, then tried to claim Michigan as a “win.” Does anyone seriously believe that if Obama had tried to pull the same trick on Clinton, the Clintonistas wouldn’t have screamed bloody murder about it and called it “cheating”?
Sixth, if a man were in Clinton’s current position in the race, the powers that be would be leaning on him to quit, too. Scott Lehigh writes,
LET’S SAY Hillary Clinton’s remaining primary rival were not Barack Obama but a white male. Suppose she were ahead in pledged delegates, led in the popular vote in DNC-approved contests, had raised the most money, and had attracted the most contributors.
Let’s further suppose that her rival had responded to her success by suggesting he might pick her as his vice-presidential nominee. And that, as she gained more momentum, he asserted that superdelegates should nevertheless make him the nominee because he could attract the working-class voters the party needed to win in the fall.
Clinton supporters would likely find those suggestions sexist.
And yet Clinton and her camp have made the same suggestions in this campaign. Clinton’s political arguments have found a broad acceptance among her backers – an acceptance that’s hard to imagine if a similar case were made by a lagging rival in a race Clinton led.
The only reason the media bobbleheads are still pretending the nomination fight isn’t already over is that the drama Clinton is generating is great for ratings. And, frankly, the only reason most of the Democratic Party is putting up with her is that she is who she is. If Chris Dodd or Joe Biden or Dennis Kucinich were in Clinton’s position and trying to win the nomination by tripping up the front runner (and can you imagine them doing that? I can’t), the Dems would have pulled the plug on this nonsense a long time ago.
Regarding the NARAL endorsement — although I support its cause, I’ve had no use for NARAL for some time. I’ve long believed NARAL is ineffectual and exists mostly to collect donations that will pay the salaries of its executives and staff. I think it was odd they decided to endorse Obama before the nomination fight was officially over, although I believe I understand why they did it. The nomination fight is, for all practical purposes, over, and it’s time to take on John “free ride” McCain, whose election would be a disaster for reproductive rights.
However, the backlash to NARAL’s endorsement has all the markings of an eating-our-own feeding frenzy. Just one more reason the Clinton nomination fight needs to stop now, and in fact should have been stopped a couple of months ago.
Updates: Michelle Cottle interviewed “high-level advisors, staffers, fundraisers, and on-the-ground organizers” of the Clinton campaign to find out why Senator Clinton is losing/lost the nomination fight. And guess what one factor is not mentioned?
Sexism.
Lots of other reasons, which mostly came down to the campaign’s own misjudgments and mismanagements. But not one person interviewed said that Hillary Clinton got shoved out of the nomination by the paternalistic establishment.
See also my post of March 3 in which I talked about why I support Obama over Clinton, and why I think Clinton supporters are not being honest with themselves about their own reasons and behaviors.
Boycotting the party if HRC isn’t the nominee is childish and cutting off your nose to spite your face. As a Barack supporter, I would still vote (D) just to keep McCain out.
I’m a woman in her early 30s. Besides wanting some fresh blood in the White House (no more Clintons please), I can’t vote for someone who doesn’t have the self-respect to leave a serial philanderer.
Flouting.
Seating FL and MI would flout the rules.
Not flaunt.
Yes, I’m an annoying pedant.
But you really do want “openly and contemtuously violate” rather than “display”.
I love it when I make a spelling error in a grammar flame.
Comtemptuously.
Second, I think some of the vile remarks aimed at Senator Clinton are expressions of dislike about her specifically, not of women generally. The problem is that our national political discourse has become so polluted that many who express dislike of Clinton believe they are supposed to toss in some vulgar personal insults of her. They think it’s expected of them, because it’s the way all public political figures are treated these days.
I think this is absolutely right. I’ve also argued the point (elsewhere) that sexism is so ingrained in our culture that absent conscious effort, anger at female public figures tends to be expressed in sexist or misogynistic ways. This is a bad thing (and good for Melissa for calling it out), but it is (as you point out) something very different from opposition motivated by misogyny.
(By the way, it’s flouting the rules, not flaunting.)
I’m an almost 50 year old white female, and was an Edwards supporter. I’m now a Clinton supporter (I feel she’s the more liberal candidate and more likely to bring about significant health care reform), but will, of course, vote for the Democratic nominee in the fall. It’s a no-brainer.
There are, however, always the brainless few who feel that their superior ideals render them incapable of political compromise which would sully their ideological purity. Usually their numbers are fairly small, but in some years the stupidity reaches epic proportions and causes problems. (Yes, I’m talking to you, Nader voters.)
Just as Bush has his dead-enders, there will always be some dead-enders in any political camp, those who cannot accept defeat gracefully…..or even gracelessly.
Still, this group seems a bit over the top. As commenters have noted on other sites, this sounds like a bit of a ratfuck (in the Nixonian sense). Who are these people, and whence their financial support?
All sports fans who have a beloved team will understand this. For Clinton supporters, Clinton is their ‘team’. They have known her, loved her and supported her for 16 years. Their emotional investment over the years is immense. She is the embodiment of their dreams and aspirations. Now their team in the semi-final of the champions league (or World Series or whatever your sport is) against some upstart team who should have no chance. Supporters believe the semi is a formality and the final will be a walk-over. Then the upstart team overturns all the odds and wins in the last 5 minutes.
So as an emotionally committed supporter, what is your natural reaction? Do you suddenly change allegiance and support the team that beat you against the other finalist. Like hell you do. You want to see that hated upstart team destroyed in the final since they destroyed your own dreams.
So don’t underestimate the emotional investment many Clinton supporters have in Clinton. It is long term, it is real. In a sense they belong to Clinton – especially for those from the same demographic (white female over 55) who project their own aspirations onto her. If you want them to somehow reject all that they have believed in for over a decade and now support the team that beat them, then you have to be generous, humble and welcoming. You have to make it easy for them. Attacking them and/or attacking their ‘team’ will just drive them further away and make them more determined to support the other finalist to destroy the upstart that beat them.
So, if Obama supporters want to win in November, be a bit more open, welcoming, forgiving, and generous.
BTW, wrt NARAL–I haven’t given them a penny since they supported Lieberman (Mr. “I never met a Bush judicial nominee I didn’t like”) in 2006. That decision made me wonder what their actual agenda is.
Geraldine’s run for VP should have taught HRC one very important lesson…no woman can get in the WH with husband who looks like baggage. ED is right, she should have dumped him long ago.
We want Hillary Clinton not because she’s a woman, we believe she’s the better candidate. She’s got the experience, the knowledge and the strength to bring this country back from the brink. We abore sexism directed towards her which has deminished her chance to win the nomination.
Obama is a wonderful orator and teacher but doesn’t know didly about running a country. He has great ideas but no substance to back them up. His judgement is grosly flawed and his choice of intimates, friends and acquantences bear that out. This country needs real leadership, not lectures.
8 years ago we gambled on an unknown with no real resume. I, for one, won’t gamble again.
As far as Hillary’s choice to stand by Bill, feel what she feels, walk in her shoes, and tell a child that they are losing their father. The woman has guts and compassion. I will not judge her decision, I will judge her accomplishments and ability to run this country.
The DNC and the media have made teflon Obama the rock star he is today, regardless of his credentials.
30 years old … how wonderful for you. It’s a shame you don’t remember the womans movement and the advances we made. You are the recipient of all the hard work and sacrifice put forth on your behalf. It’s a shame you can’t see that a qualified candidate is being blackballed simply because of her gender.
I’m glad you support Obama, that’s your right but I sincerely hope that your doing it for the right reason.
As for me, the DNC threw my primary vote away, I will throw my November vote away and write in Hillary Clinton as president. Just remember, 5 states broke the DNC rules, only 2 were punished. Fair? I think not!!!!!!!
Let’s continually remind these people that you are not just electing a President. The party that controls the White House controls thousands of crucial appointments throughout the executive branch, regulatory agencies, and the courts. Do we want these people to be Democrats or Republicans? – that’s almost the only question that matters.
It’s the appoinments, stupid!
(and BTW, how many of these key jobs will go to women under Obama as compared to McCain – think about that one.)
The problem isn’t that she’s a woman, it’s the type of woman she is. She isn’t very feminine and comes off as the type of woman who thinks that to be equal to a man who have to be like a man. People get turned off by this. Nancy Pelosi seems much more feminine and was embraced by the party when she became the first woman speaker of the house. She isn’t the most likable person & where its not fair that people vote for personality, it doesn’t effect women alone. Gore was seen as boring so people wouldn’t vote for him. Howard Dean made a weird noise once, no presidency for him. It’s not fair and it may not yield the best presidents all the time, but it’s not exclusive to Hilary.
So, if Obama supporters want to win in November, be a bit more open, welcoming, forgiving, and generous.
I’ve tried, but the Clintonistas kept attacking me as a brainwashed cult follower who doesn’t understand political reality. I gave up.
It’s understandable that people are hurt and disappointed when their candidate loses. I’ve been there several times. Grown ups generally can get over their disappointment and adjust to political reality.
Hillary Supporter, you write,
“30 years old … how wonderful for you. It’s a shame you don’t remember the womans movement and the advances we made. You are the recipient of all the hard work and sacrifice put forth on your behalf. It’s a shame you can’t see that a qualified candidate is being blackballed simply because of her gender.”
Who the hell are you addressing? I’m 56, not 30.
Ah, I see you were talking to another commenter, not the author of the blog post (me).
This is typical of the Clinton bots. They assume anyone who supports Obama must be stupid/immature/sexist/brainwashed/too young to know better.
Guess again, toots.
BTW, I’m a resident of New York who has voted twice for Clinton to be my senator. But she’s been a huge disappointment as a senator, which is one of several reasons I support Obama. She certainly would be a better president than Bush, but based on her record she would not be the best choice of the two for president, and certainly does not have the skills to lead a real progressive government.
Case in point:
The DNC and the media have made teflon Obama the rock star he is today, regardless of his credentials.
30 years old … how wonderful for you. It’s a shame you don’t remember the womans movement and the advances we made. You are the recipient of all the hard work and sacrifice put forth on your behalf. It’s a shame you can’t see that a qualified candidate is being blackballed simply because of her gender.
I don’t understand how anyone, HRC supporter or otherwise, can sit at their keyboard and say that Barack Obama’s received a pass while Hillary Clinton has been screwed over by the media. That’s just plain wrong.
The truth is they’ve both been screwed over, but how can anyone serious have missed out on the Reverend Wright-A-Thon that was running on every cable outlet? How in the hell is making a candidate accountable for every utterance of his former pastor making him “teflon”?
As for the women’s movement bit, just re-read maha’s post.
Write in Hillary Clinton in November and help John McCain, a man who will appoint more anti-women and anti-choice Justices to the Supreme Court. That will really do the memory of women’s movement proud.
Thanks to everyone who corrected my “flaunting” mistake. I changed it to “gaming.”
If you had read further you would have seen “I’m glad you support Obama, that’s your right but I sincerely hope that your doing it for the right reason.”
I do not consider Obama supporters to be “stupid/immature/sexist/brainwashed/too young to know better”
I firmly believe that most have been caught up in the media hype. If you go issue by issue you will see that Obama and Clinton have almost the same stance. I feel Clinton would be better prepared and more capable of instituting those plans. That’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it.
As far as the womans movement, it’s true. Young women know very little about the struggles women have gone through for generations. If you don’t believe that sexism has hurt Hillary then explain to me why everyone had a fit when Obama was called “boy” but it’s more than permissible for Obama to call a woman “sweetie”. Racial bias is politically incorrect, as it should be, but sexist remarks are just as hurtful and harmful but that’s considered “humor”.
So, sweetie, if your going to respond, read the entire post. Don’t assume you know what I’m thinking and don’t try to talk down to me, you won’t do it.
I respect your point of view and I appreciate this form to voice mine. It’s just too bad that opposing views can’t coexist.
Sorry–Joel’s post didn’t show when I wrote mine, otherwise I wouldn’t have repeated the correction.
So, if Obama supporters want to win in November, be a bit more open, welcoming, forgiving, and generous.
Okay, here’s a gesture: I’m inviting everyone who supports either candidate to come say what they like about the other candidate. Clinton supporters can come by and see Obama supporters being gracious and generous about Clinton–and vice-versa. It’s a very small gesture, but it’s something.
I firmly believe that most have been caught up in the media hype.
Thanks for proving my point.
If you go issue by issue you will see that Obama and Clinton have almost the same stance. I feel Clinton would be better prepared and more capable of instituting those plans. That’s my opinion and I’m entitled to it.
Yes, you are, and I am entitled to the opinion that Clinton’s record is grossly inflated and she has accomplished very little in all the years she’s been in Washington. She fights and fights, yes, but she mostly loses those fights, except when she votes with the Right. Please note that I live in New York and voted for her twice for Senate.
I’ve met her, in fact, and she was very sweet. I’ve seen her speak in person several times. She’s just not got what it takes to be the president I want right now. She’s a tweaker, not a do-er.
So, sweetie, if your going to respond, read the entire post. Don’t assume you know what I’m thinking and don’t try to talk down to me, you won’t do it.
Hey, it’s my blog. I’ll talk down to anyone I like here.
It’s just too bad that opposing views can’t coexist.
It is, isn’t it? Well, let me know when you’re ready to open your mind. Then we can talk.
Hey Toots, Barack Obama apologized for his “sweetie” remark, maybe you ought to apologize to Maha for yours.
“…in fact should have been stopped a couple of months ago.” (emphasis added)
maha, I am amazed to see you write that. And extremely disappointed.
To the Hilary Supporter:
Just because I am (relatively) young, don’t assume that I don’t know anything about the women’s movement. Yes I was too young to experience the blatant sexism of the past, but I have studied women’s history and particularly American women’s history in some detail. I find your patronizing tone unproductive.
I will concede that Clinton and Obama have similar platforms, but I believe that Clinton has gone against the will of most of the party with her pro-war voting record.
My gut feeling about her as a person is that she is an opportunist with very little self-respect. I have a hard time relating to that.
As for divorcing him, her daughter isn’t “losing” her father, she’s getting a powerful example of a woman taking care of herself. All she should have to tell Chelsea is that he’s a great dad and a good President, but a horrible husband.
What gets me, really, is that a relatively small group wants to overturn the primary election results (Obama ahead in every way) and make the loser the nominee because they “know” that their candidate will be a better president.
Just how does this differ from what happened in Florida in 2000? And didn’t we all howl when that went down.
Maybe Clinton would be a better president than Obama. Maybe not. We can all have opinions on that. But the majority rules in this country (despite what Bush & Co. think) and the majority like Obama. So he’s going to be the nominee, good or bad. That’s the way the system is supposed to work here.
maha, I am amazed to see you write that. And extremely disappointed.
It was obvious two months ago that the only way she could win the nomination was by destroying Obama through a Karl Rove-style smear campaign, thus forcing the superdelegates to support her. But some of us still believe in democracy, not back-room strong-arm tactics. By now the party should be united behind the eventual nominee, Obama, and going after McCain. Instead, McCain gets a free ride in the press, and Clinton’s dirty campaign tactics have done nothing but weaken Obama without getting her any closer to taking the nomination.
I say again, the party should have gone to her weeks ago and said, enough is enough; it’s over. And had any of the other (male) candidates behaved as she has behaved, the party would have done just that.
When you look at leadership, particularly as applied to the POTUS, you look for vision, the ability to inspire and the ability to seelct the people who will carry out your plan. If the selection of your campaign staff is an indication of the cabinet selections you would make, Senator Clinton fails. Internal strife has been legendary. Once the plan of sweeping the initial primaies derailed, they did not adjust.She has not been able to keep her key campaign players through the primary season.
A quarterback does not have much (if any) say about who will play on his team. But Obama and Clinton had all the power to select their team. Clinton started off with a lot of money and connections. Obama had less to work with, and he assembled a TEAM who has worked miracles. That’s not the result of pretty speeches, and it has nothing to do with gender bias.
Wow quite a heated debate. I love the parts about “Teflon Obama” and how the media is letting Obama off the hook. Give me a fucking break. Am I getting a different cable feed than others? The fact is the media has been railroading Obama and Clinton for one very good reason. Ratings! And because many in this country are too god dam backward to notice and or too indifferent to care we keep watching and listening. If anything this election has shown what a bunch of intolerant and self destructive fools many of us really are. We get all fucked up about a black man or a woman running for president but seem all too willing to elect the same old grey haired bastards that have been fucking us over for the past 40 plus years. We let the media divide us into blue collar, white working class, white collar, black, white, brown, educated, uneducated, wealthy, middle class, working poor, it really makes me ill.
I frankly find it amazing that Clinton supporters would deny that the media has used race to divide the democrats and that Obama supporters can’t see that HRC has and continues to be belittled because of her gender. I quess we should expect this from the corporate media, but we should demand better from our candidates.
I have not seen the Obama campaign use Hillary’s gender against her, but there is no denying that Hillary and her campaign have used Obama’s race as their last ditch scorched earth attempt at winning.
I am 62 and would like to touch on the women my age that are so solidly Hillary supporters because she is the first woman to run; and, it is something we have worked really hard for. I was really excited about Hillary’s candidacy; but, my bubble burst when it became clear that there was becoming a real opportunity for an African American man who could win this nomination. That, too–for someone who went through the civil rights movement before the women’s movement–was truly exciting. But, I did stomp around the house screaming why did these two firsts have to come at the same time in this manner. Why, why, why! There is nothing but heartache ahead, I thought–to be so torn between these two firsts. When Hillary was being so villified while First Lady, I supported her and marveled at her ability to take it–because the Repugs and the media were really mean and cruel to her. No human being deserves the treatment she was subjected to during that time period.
Because I live in Maryland and am registered as “no party”, I do not get to participate in the primaries; but, if I had, I would have probably gone into the boothe undecided between Hillary and John Edwards, who I still hope will have an opportunity to use his talent and kindness to help our country. Thus, primaries have only been something I watch from the sidelines.
Once it became clear that the race for the nomination was between Obama and Clinton, I decided to support Obama for many of the same reasons that Maha stated in an earlier blog. I recently found out that I am the odd-woman out amongst my age group. I became aware of it when my college roommate, who is the the most sensible, down-to-earth, and intelligent woman I haver ever known, was just stunned when I told her I thought Obama would make the better President. “But, it’s our chance to vote for a woman,” she told me almost vehemently. She told me how an aunt of hers and other women friends our age are of the same opinion. What was wrong with me?!
Shortly, after that, a friend I do volunteer work with for the past 20 years told me how his wife was quite adamant about voting for the first woman for President. And, how can any woman NOT vote for Hillary. Both of them are registered Republicans who cast no votes ever for W. His wife also has been a very active union member/official during her nursing career. I have never met her; but, have come to like her very much because of all the stories I have heard about her from him. The end result is that it seems that many of my peers do think of me as a traitor to my sex. Sigh. [I am really trying to keep this short; but, obviously failing.] This is just boggling my mind. I finally told him that I always thought the best thing about women was that we weren’t as stupid as men and would not vote for just any one just because of her sex. I thought women were more discerning than that; and would vote for the best candidate. I surely am wrong about that.
There is one thing missing from all the arguments above; and, that is “what is best for our country.” This country is on the edge of collapse if things aren’t changed SOON. I believe that Obama as the Democratic nominee for President is best for the country.
Final comment–in my lifetime, barriers have been broken down in a certain order. Before I was born, African American men got the right to vote after the Civil War; women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920. (And, most people don’t know that American Indians did not get the right to vote until 1934.) Also, the pioneer in breaking down the barriers seldom succeeded in winning the prize sought, but opening up the opportunities for the future generations. Thus, it seems to me this is the natural order of things. Hillary has blazed a great trail and should be proud of it–I know I am (up until she started attacking Obama); but, she needs to step back and honestly assess the situation and do what is best for the country.
P.S. I probably won’t live long enough to see an American Indian woman become President.
Second, I think some of the vile remarks aimed at Senator Clinton are expressions of dislike about her specifically, not of women generally.
I’ll claim that one.. I just can’t warm up to a testosterone saturated personality who’s eager to boast of their willingness to obliterate, annihilate, or incinerate an entire nation just to appear tough, like she’s got the balls to kill millions of innocents without a second thought. It’s a repulsive quality of character in either gender, and it’s in direct opposition to wisdom.
Maybe Spalding will outfit her with an Offical Presidential Jock Strap or cod piece should she become President?
“I probably won’t live long enough to see an American Indian girl become president”
Bonnie:
if you were American, Indian, french, chinese, russian, white, black , blue, purple, cooper colored, you name it, I would support you because you get it….
I am 62 and would like to touch on the women my age that are so solidly Hillary supporters because she is the first woman to run; and, it is something we have worked really hard for.
Hillary Clinton may have had a much better shot at a major party nomination than any other woman in the past, but she’s not the first woman to run.
Both Liddy Dole in 2000 and Carol Mosely Braun in 2004 ran serious, if very unsuccessful, primary campaigns recently.
But the actual first woman to seek the presidential nomination of a major party was Shirley Chisolm, way back in 1972.
One thing both Clinton and Obama supporters can agree on is that neither has been served well by the corporate media.
That’s one strong reason Obama makes sense to me. Unlike Clinton, he opposes media consolidation — and is following the lead of 99% of those making submissions on Bush’s new media plan. (And need I remind everyone that media consolidation got a huge boost in the Clinton administration?)
Just today, Obama weighed in on the FCC’s media-ownership vote of last year. As Matt Stoller puts it at Open Left,
I’m sorry, but I just can’t see a long-time Washington insider like Hillary Clinton taking this kind of stand.
Edit: I was inartful in saying Clinton does not oppose media consolidation. She may well have voted against it. However, it’s clear that her media and technology policy is simply not as forward-thinking as Obama’s, and that he is stepping up to the plate on issues like this, and net neutrality. I think in fact that he had a lot of help in crafting his media/tech policy from Lawrence Lessig, the founder of Creative Commons. Interested parties should check out the Lessig blog.
Bonnie,
Thank you for writing that. I’ve heard a few women my age make the argument that I should be a Clinton supporter because I’m female. I say that’s just another version of sexism. Just because Clinton and I have the same type of genitals doesn’t mean I *have* to support her.
Apparently nobody — neither maha nor any commenter — thought of Googling Cynthia Ruccia.
Hillary, is a candidate who especially needed to assure the country that she possesses good judgment and the ability to learn from her mistakes. Why did she need to make such assurances? Because she had a record that created some strong concerns: her AUMF vote, her Kyl-Lieberman vote, her mishandling of her only big signature issue as First Lady [she was handed the health care initiative at a favorable juncture when Democrats held the White House and the Congress], her vote for a flag-burning amendment, and lastly, the thinness of her Senate achievement record [nearly 80% of her achievements were fluff resolutions].
So, when Hillary began her primary run, she had some important work to do to assure voters about her judgment and her learning curve.
Instead, IMHO, she ran a traditional p.r. campaign on ‘inevitability, name recognition, being a gender ‘first’ [in the NH debate she actually said, “I believe being the first woman president would be a huge change” as though that should substitute for the real changes folks are desperate to see in the country], and a not-subtle ‘two-for-one’ promise of a return to the Clinton years.
But, then, when her traditional campaign wasn’t successful, Hillary Clinton, in the real time very public world of heated campaigning, demonstrated poor judgment in handling her own campaign staff or campaign direction. For one example, it defies all sense of good judgment that she kept Mark Penn on staff after he went to Colombia in a lobbyist role directly opposing her position on a trade deal. For another example, Hillary’s campaign crashed financially……all the while she asserted that she could better handle the country’s economy.
Today, at this last stage in the primary, all Hillary Clinton has left to offer to her supporters, to voters and to the super delegates is ‘her asserted judgment’ that she would be the stronger GE candidate. Unless one is a Hillary die-hard supporter, it would be awfully difficult to rely on her judgment. In her own words, ‘It would necessitate the suspension of disbelief’.
Professor Brillington-James:
So I googled “Cynthia Ruccia” and didn’t learn anything particularly significant other than her involvement in a gay baiting episode. So she’s a flame thrower. That we already knew. Your point?
Mr. Alpers,
I remember all those campaigns. I am quite a fan of Shirley Chisolm; she is one of my heroes. However, despite Shirley’s seriousness about her campaign, no one in the media or other circles thought she had a chance in hell of winning it. Liddy Dole was only able to have a brief run at the Republican nomination because of her husband; however, I do not remember reading any where that people thought she had a chance to win it. Most of these runs were short-lived; not the success that Hillary has had. And, that is the important path that Hillary blazed.
Patricia Schoerder ran briefly, too. When she realized it was going to be, she had a press conference and cried. And, that is all we heard about was she cried. Soon, people had forgotten that Schoerder was solely responsible for raising the awareness of the scourge of breast cancer by earmarking money for breast cancer research in the DOD appropriations bill. Those nasty old earmarks. At the time she did that, a breast cancer diagnosis was a death sentence. Now, more women are surviving breast cancer, giving us many more women in the future to run for President.
It’s good to get some insight on the sources of the strong feelings in regards to Clinton. I was honestly just not getting it. Why so much fervor, and then grievance, from the supporters of the overwhelmingly establishment candidate, the one who came from party royalty, had an aura of inevitability, huge resources, and the backing of the vast majority of the party insiders and major interest groups? How could anyone(and especially people in the progressive blogosphere) really have that much invested in such a thoroughly insider and cautiously centrist candidate? How could she possibly have had anything unfairly taken from her, when she held all of the cards to begin with? Etc.
Perhaps I was just being thickheaded. I certainly noticed and was disgusted by the misogyny in the media, and the overeager crowing every time it looked like Clinton was about to lose. I’ve been reading the critiques by feminist blogs of the coverage, and it has been an eye-opener. But after the post-Ohio onslaught on Obama, it’s very hard to say that the media was fair to either one of them, or that they did much to tip the outcome in either direction. And being in my late 20’s, I’ve not had much exposure to the demographics who seem to have the most invested in Clinton. Most of the women of my age and acquaintance were just not invested in Clinton in that way, and not making their decisions on those grounds. I think it’s a fairly generational thing, with obvious exceptions all around, and I’ve been sort of generationally blind to what is going on here.
That still doesn’t explain the likes of Jerome Armstrong, but one probably shouldn’t try.
DONNA 5/17, 8:13 am\
Thanks for putting all the thoughts running through my head into five paragraphs. I’ve read at least six books on the Clintons and neither should ever be allowed back in the WH.
I happen to support Sen. Obama (though Edwards, first of all), but I do respect and admire Senator Clinton. If she managed to secure the nomination I would gladly vote for her in November–but these days I would have to consider how it was secured. I really deplore the idea of Democratic supporters of HRC even considering a vote for a candidate who vows to further stuff the SOTUS with conservative justices hostile to Roe v. Wade. Have they no daughters? So OK, I’m male and maybe shouldn’t butt in, but in a gesture of good faith, I offer an idea for a bumper sticker: ‘My wife can beat up your husband!’ Might get a laugh or two at least.
…electing her would be glorious payback for the countless indignities they’ve suffered through the years.
And helping put in the White House John McCain, who calls his wife a “trollop” and a “c*nt” in front of reporters will validate this, exactly how?
“Sexism has a lot to do with Clinton’s “negatives,†the people who just plain don’t like her and won’t budge from that position no matter what she says or does. ”
The corporate media has been excoriating her for being a woman since the 1992 campaign. Sexism is her ‘negative’, first and foremost, and it always has been.
Hillary’s first and foremost “negative” is that people can see her for what she is… a political chameleon and opportunist. You think she took up residency in New York State because she loved the people of that state, and had an abiding desire to serve them?
Hillary for Hillary! Self above all else.
So sad that these people would choose to use all that energy to defeat Obama when they could use the same resources to ensure victory for the many Democratic women in tight Senate races, like Kay Hagen in NC, and Mary Landrieu in LA. Oh, but I forgot–that would push forward a progressive agenda, and we can’t have that. It’s more important to have 4 years of McBush and overturn Roe V Wade.