Well, I think you probably could for some people substitute “for the person whom she lost to.” I’m really not up to snuff on why/how the DNC has pissed off some of these supporters because I didn’t closely watch that story; it’s just my understanding that it’s a factor and Suse posted some evidence of it as well.
But I think it’s six of one half dozen of the other. The more these people feel respected and listened to the more many of them will feel able to reconcile themselves to the Democratic party and its nominee.
Of course Clinton made sure everyone noticed this, with her “3 AM” ad and with that abominable quote I posted above where she says McCain is more ready to be president than Obama is.
There is nothing “feminist” about being irrationally attached to a candidate simply because she is a woman, and then reacting irrationally when she loses fairly, blaming everyone (the media, the DNC, Obama) and wanting to punish someone for some perceived “great spite”.
It seems to me that feminism is the theory that women and men are equal and we should not discriminate against either one based on gender. Look at someone’s qualifications and decide if you want them. Don’t take their gender into account when deciding.
To their great credit, many women I know voted for Obama (it’s to their credit not because Obama is better or worse, but the because they evaluated them both and decided to pick a candidate based on who they perceived had the best qualifications). The women who made a gender-neutral determination whom to vote for are true feminists (at least in my opinion. YMMV)
The fact is that the two candidates have very similar positions. I can see Blacks preferring that the Black candidate get elected, and women preferring that the female candidate get elected. So, I can see how Blacks would have been disappointed had Obama lost and I can see how women can be disappointed that Clinton lost. But, hey, since the two candidates have very similar positions on issues, the result is not that bad.
But to go nuts and feel as if the “party doesn’t care about you and thinks you are insignificant” and wanting to retaliate because of that, even though the election was decided fair and square based on rules in place at the beginning of the election, is wildly irrational gender bias, and we are doing a disservice to feminism if we attribute this behavior to “feminist sensibilities”
Sure, Polerius. That’s what I meant by “disappointed feminist sensibilities.” If I’m a bit more euphemistic than you it’s probably because I feel I can understand the emotions if not the decision that may–remember it’s still early days–follow from them.
Is it time to stop beating up on Dorothea Book yet? I mean, she doesn’t even hold these opinions herself, she’s just trying to share what she’s heard and read. Someone posted this on the Obama blogs just a little while ago:
Feel free to try to tear it apart with logic, but it’ll do no good because there’s no logic in it. Be annoyed, frustrated, even pissed off, that a group of people could be this dense about an issue this supposedly clear cut to the rest of us.
But at this point I think it’s best to stop trying to “understand” it, or pick it apart, or play the blame game with it, and just accept that it’s there for now and give it time for things to settle down.
Clinton’s campaign was fueled largely by entitlement and empowerment.
Entitlement = I’ve been an icon in the party since the early 90s, and have paid my dues, running the GOP gauntlet fearlessly all that time.
Empowerment = I’m a symbol for feminism and represent the best chance to reaffirm that a fair system will let a woman reach the highest office in the land.
So it’s a bitter pill that she lost not only to a man, but a younger one–a political upstart with “less” experience who has plenty of opportunities in the future to run. Why not wait? By simply opposing Clinton and not accepting her as the next “logical” choice is not only presumptuous, but unequivocally unfair.
I suspect a lot of the Clintonites bought hook-line-and-sinker the meme that her victory was inevitable and the primaries were a formality. Imagine the gaul and brazeness to not defer to her! She “deserves” this! The party establishment “owes” this to her!
So Obama’s at fault for running and the DNC’s at fault for letting him win. Everything else (her incompetently run campaign, her insistence on perpetually moving the goalposts, her inability to connect with voters not already on board the Clinton Express) are technicalities. She should’ve been anointed (I’m sure they think any man would’ve been), so regardless of how badly she fumbled all the lucrative advantages she had going in, not winning meant it was “taken” from her.
True. But a) Bill was a 2x governor and b) I think people were concerned about his experience too. I recall that people were worried about GWB’s experience (too bad they weren’t more worried).
Now please tell me you think that 46 is really, really, really young.
Because it’s how old I will be on my next birthday…
I’d like to reiterate what many have expressed–a deep appreciation for your participation on the board, DB. I also do hope you stay.
My wife was for Clinton for a while, and said she could understand not being fairly recognized in a man’s world. Mrs. AG deals with CEOs and CFOs as a matter of course throughout her business dealings, and has sold more business and created more repeat clients than anyone else in her company, but she’ll still see partners and underlings ignore her opinions or observations while getting enthusiastically behind someone who (a) says the same thing, and (b) is younger and male.
So she can understand why Clinton supporters would take their everyday experiences of being disenfranchised and unappreciated in all-male environments and project their pain and resentment on the dynamics of this campaign.
Eventually, Clinton’s odious tactics were enough to swing my wife over to Obama’s camp, but she still felt more than a twinge of identification–especially since Clinton so obviously, passionately believed (or convinced herself) that there really was no choice. Obama over her? Inconceivable! How could everyone else not see what was so crystal-clear to her?
Hence the scapegoats and blame games, and anything she communicated (through assertion or subtext) was far more palatable to her more avid followers than the cold true reality that the political landscape had changed since Bill’s time in the Oval Office, and perhaps Hillary was simply the right person at the wrong time.
Quoted in full because it to me is such an excellent analysis of the emotion-choked rationale for such irrational behavior.
While I can understand the mindset that got the Clintonistas to this point, I must say that, as a 59-year-old woman who’s experienced more than enough sexist treatment, and a feminist since the days when the newspaper classifieds were divided into “Help Wanted - Male” and “Help Wanted - Female” I find such thinking depressingly demonstrative of the sexist stereotype of women, feminists in particular, as shrill, emotion-ruled, irrational weaklings who demand that “equality” be expressed through favoritism toward women.
Now, mind you, such sexist stereotyping is bullshit, but unfortunately the reactions we’re discussing feed right into it.
But the experienced/inexperienced thing is what has me confused. Yeah, Sen Clinton has a few (VERY few) more years in the US Senate than Clinton, but he has held elective office for three years longer. Being at Bill’s side all those years doesn’t count; as long as we’ve been married, I’d no more expect my wife to have picked up enough of my job to do it than she would expect that I could do hers. All Clinton has is that she’s older. Big whoop.
And excuse me if everybody and his aunt has linked to this or something like it, but John McCain is no poster boy for male enlightenment.
I don’t think anyone is beating up on Dorothea Book. I think it’s a breath of fresh air to have someone lucid and articulate try to explain the feelings behind the “I’m angry and voting for McCain” crowd, even though she herself doesn’t actually share those views.
This has been coming up often in this thread: That the reaction is irrational, we should stop trying to understand it using logic, we should just “accept it” and give it some time to settle down.
Maybe this is a topic for another debate, but is the above related to the fact that these supporters are female? Do her male supporters also have this irrational feeling that we should somehow accept and let it be, and give it some time to subside, without trying to analyze it using logic? Do male voters in other elections behave the same way?
Someone in this thread mentioned that this discussion reminded him of discussions with his wife. Overall, from anecdotal experience, and from stuff I’ve read over the years, it looks like women many times just want to complain/vent, and they don’t want the guy listening to overanalyze what the problem is and try to solve it. Guys, by nature, want to problem-solve and when they try to make suggestions as to the logical steps their wife/girlfriend can take to solve her problem, they don’t like that. They just want a sympathetic ear. They don’t necessarily want to do anything to “fix” the problem they are complaining about. Just venting about it makes them feel better.
Assuming you accept that the above holds, broadly speaking, is the current state of these upset Clinton supporters in any way related to this?
I would like to add my voice to those thanking Dorothea Book for her participation in this thread. I recognize that I haven’t been nearly as eloquent as I would have liked and I truly appreciate your accurate interpretations. I do hope you stay.
The “Inexperienced” bit is a boilerplate red herring used against every candidate who hasn’t spent the last 20 years in Washington. At a certain point, it tends to come across to me as “Hey! We haven’t had a chance to co-opt this person into the system yet! He might actually want to change things!”
Since I’ll be 46 in just over two weeks, I can tell you that it is NOT “young”. It’s just the other side of that inexperienced bit, with a bunch of 70 year olds in Washington not wanting to turn over power to people who haven’t paid as many dues as they have. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of people who want to do that in every field of life.
Maybe you can explain something to me, then, as I also recall ‘inexperience’ being used against other candidates, and I’m curious about the answer. Why, since it is a common tactic, do Obama supporters get so outraged (as seen in many examples in this thread) that Clinton used it on Obama?
Against my better judgment, I’m going to wade into this and offer a perspective - one that is available for examination, but not necessarily for debate. In other words, I seriously doubt that there is much that someone can say to dissuade me from the perspective I’m presenting. But the OP asked…
…I am not a woman, nor am I White. But I am (was?) a Hillary supporter. I thought she was the most intelligent and active First Lady of the twentieth century. I greatly respect her ability to walk into the Senate with a huge bullseye on her back and become a respected colleague even among those who vowed to dislike her. As an educator, I also took pride that her work with the Children’s Defense Fund was not just for show - the journal I edited in grad school published an article written by the then Hillary Rodham about the CDF’s work. I could say much more why I was enthused about her candidacy but I think the point to be made follows.
Immediately, I noticed that there was a level of sexism and misogyny that seemed to be acceptable in the media - we seem to have progressed to a level that it is known and understood that racism, regardless of whether one harbors such feelings or not, is socially unacceptable behavior. I don’t doubt there are virulent racists that oppose Obama simply because he’s Black. I do know that very few of them found a voice in the popular media.
I’m also of the opinion that the Obama campaign was not completely free from throwing a few elbows themselves. There was the memo circulated around the time of the SC primary that misconstrued Bill Clinton’s “fairy tale” comment. Susan Power’s “monster” comment. General McPeak’s “crying” comment. Obama’s own response that Hillary “lashed out” and she attacked him “periodically, when she felt down.” All of this is not to demonize Obama and his campaign; it’s a long, contentious process, and everyone is prone to say things that they might regret later. But I simply expected better from a campaign that promised a new kind of politics.
There’s also a thread I’ve noticed among many Obama supporters that their support is derived from dispassionate examination of his policies and record, and that Clinton supporters are largely led by their emotions. Emotion is a huge part of the support base for both candidates; both candidates exploited this for their benefit - and I for one don’t have a problem with this. I do think, as Dorothea has noted upthread, much of the anger might be alleviated if Clinton supporters are given an opportunity to come to terms with the end of her candidacy and Obama supporters follow the lead of the man himself and show some grace in victory.
Not outraged, but impressed with her moxie to try it when she is no more experienced than Obama and flabbergasted that intelligent and informed people would swallow it, the same way I’m amazed that people keep calling McCain a reformer when I keep seeing him with the rest of the Keating Five.
I have to hand it to her that both of them pulled it off, but it doesn’t incline me to vote for them. And, had Clinton won, I would happily vote for her in November. I just think the experience card is a canard.
Hmmm…‘scorched-earth tactics’. “Shame on you,” for a couple of examples. Looks like outrage to me. Does it appear to you that they are mildly annoyed?
I can’t recall a Democratic primary where the challengers weren’t out for blood, so what Clinton said didn’t seem outrageous to me. I’ve often said that we normally hand the Republicans all their talking points. I just don’t see that this is any different.