Suse, it’s one thing to not feel like you know or connect with a candidate enough to feel good about casting your vote for them at this point. It’s another thing to direct anger at a candidate merely for daring to beat the one you (generic you) supported.
From your article:
That is the kind of emotion no candidate or candidate’s supporters are going to be able to soothe, no matter how nice we are to them. That can only come from the candidate who lost, convincing them that they aren’t hurt or angry, so their supporters shouldn’t be either.
No, Diogenes, it’s you who’s stereotyping. First of all, equating emotional reactions to irrationality is not only wrong, it’s rude. Secondly, everyone, not just women, votes largely based on emotion.
I didn’t equate emotionalism to irrationalism and I’m not sterotyping. I was responding to Suze’s admission that her ambivalence about who to vote for was not logical, and that it was because she doesn’t connect (whatever that means) with either candidate.
My comment was only that those kind of statements reinforce classic perceptions of women being driven by emotion rather than reason. I didn’t say I believe the stereotype.
Shayna, I am not singling you out any more than I was Whack-a-mole. Please forgive me if I speak in generalities. I am trying to save time and also to avoid lengthy and confrontational engagements with particular posts. Sometimes that can lead to misunderstandings for which I apologize.
I realize that’s what you’re doing. But I think we all agree that those few Hillary supporters angry enough to stay home or vote for McCain aren’t behaving according to a normal logic that would entail their voting for the most feminist-friendly platform.
The subject of this thread (and I now realize that it’s actuality an an important topic so I want to apologize to astro for saying earlier that the topic had been done to death) is why these people feel as they do.
I guess I thought we were past seeing it as temper tantrums. In fact I thought there was some agreement back on page one that many of these women were responding to a feeling of systematic misogyny and unfairness to women: in the media, in the Democratic Party, in the whole society. In my perception of this thread (this is impressionistic–I’m working from memory) we got to a certain point and then the very misogyny that makes these women so angry and hurt entered the discourse of this thread.
Thanks for posting the link to your thread.
My sense is that she is trying.
Exactly. That tack isn’t going to work. Fortunately it probably doesn’t matter what either of us does but for the purpose of this discussion I think it’s clear that what these voters need to hear is a genuine welcome (of the sort Obama expressed through his respect for HRC’s groundbreaking candidacy): not hectoring about Hillary’s falseness or Barack’s superiority.
In some previous thread here (can’t be arsed to look it up…not important to cite anyway) I opined that if I felt Clinton stole the election I would seriously consider voting for McCain or staying home (almost certainly I would have stayed home). To me “stealing” the election would amount to changing the rules mid-game or having her claim more supers despite Obama winning the popular vote. To me, while hating the thought of another 4-years of Bush under McSame I could not abide allowing the Democratic party to be, well, undemocratic and I would seek to punish the party for that.
So, from that aspect I think I understand the notion.
However, if Clinton won straight up, fair and square despite what I viewed as some tactics I did not like I still would have voted for her come November (initially I was a Clinton supporter actually and you could search these forums to see other times I have defended the Clintons on numerous occasions…just a little disclosure there).
What I and others are trying to show you here, and not just argue but prove, is that the DNC and/or Obama did not steal anything from Clinton. They did not treat her unfairly and if anything capitulated to her when they probably should not have in the interests of appeasement.
Given that I think your anger towards the DNC and feelings of being marginalized are baseless (not saying you do not feel that way as you obviously do but that there is no merit backing up the notion). The DNC stole nothing and gave clinton more than her share in the end. Certainly Obama is making a distinct effort at wooing back your vote (Dorothea Book quoted him doing just that earlier) so he is listening and he is the one you’d be voting for. Additionally in his victory speech is explicitly noted Clinton’s roles and experience and qualifications as a Senator and specifically noted she would be a big part of huge reforms (specifically health insurance which is kind of her thing).
To me it looks very much like you are being courted (to turn a phrase) by Obama and he is very much listening and seeking to address your issues. If in the end you dislike the person or the policies fine. I just hope you will not penalize him for the primaries as he really does not deserve that.
I think the way you describe their behavior in the first of these two quotes, fits with the description “temper tantrum”. I don’t think that describes all of Hillary’s supporters by any stretch of the imagination. But there is a small subset of them that it does. Thankfully, it appears as if that subset is rather small, indeed.
Come visit the blogs at barackobama.com. We’re welcoming a LOT of Hillary’s supporters there. I’ve even posted an offer to contribute to the “personal fundraising campaigns” of Hillary supporters who come out to say hello, whether they’re ready to endorse Obama yet or not.
I don’t give a damn about your perceptions, and remember, I already voted for Obama. But I did it on issues, not emotion, and you know what? It’s not enough to compel me to continue with the same vote in November.
The only reason I bother to try to explain these things, and to admit these truths, is that maybe it can help us all learn how to reconnect. If I’m wasting my time, as it appears I am, tell me now so I don’t waste any more of it.
I would contend that virtually all that perceived “misogyny” is imaginary, at least within the Democratic Party, and that Barack Obama should not have to apologize for or justify running against a woman. He beat her fair and square, using agreed upon roles, he did not resort to sexism and neither did his supporters for the most part, he faced more (and continues to face more) prejuduce than she did. His campaign and his nomination are historical in their own rights and these embittered Hillary supporters are stepping on that. I don’t understand the insinuations that he did something unfair to her by beating her or that he took anything that was rightfully hers. Was he supposed to let her win because she was a woman?
I think that, to some degree, there is a generational divide at play here where women of a certain age still perceive sexism, even when it doesn’t exist. They think that Hillary was “pushed out” because she’s a woman. That is simply not an accurate view of reality. Not that Hillary wasn’t subjected to any sexism, but it was not systemic to the party and it was not a factor in Obama’s victory. Frankly, I would argue that she benefited from racism far more than Obama benefited from sexism.
I see posters on those blogs even now jumping not only on the Jeremiah Wright stuff, but even on some of the stupidest, most wingnut internet slanders against Obama.
Well…not sure how far you want to take “agreement”. While it probably was agreed women feel this way I think it was shown that by-and-large misogyny was not an overt force in her campaign. Some was there to be sure but then so was racism towards Obama. Both are ugly, both stink but I do not think you can hang her loss on that alone.
Then we got to the DNC not listening or in some fashion being unfair and marginalizing this huge block of voters (which for some reason has come to be equated as all female and we know that to not be true…I do not know the numbers but I have seen plenty of men in aggressive support of her as well).
Yes some misogynistic overtones have crept in here but overall I think people are making their points form both sides without too much rancor. Arguments based on sexism will not survive long here.
So Obama has done his part and been gracious and supportive in the merits of Clinton so who is it again that needs to provide a genuine welcome (not following that)?
They’re not MY perceptions. At least they didn’t USED to be. Maybe I’ll have to rethink that.
Would you like to keep the right to choose, yes or no? The Supreme Court is one seat away. Whatever your grievance is, is it really worth it to you to punish all other women over it?
*"“There are going to be some real disgruntled women who feel like Barack Obama took what should have been Hillary Clinton’s because he wasn’t willing to be patient,” Ayres said. “John McCain is a very attractive alternative to people who are upset. He’s not a threatening Republican; he’s not a right-wing Republican.” *
Personally I have very little confidence in what Republican pollsters have to say about John McCain or disgruntled women. DigitalC: Thats what i don’t get, they act as if they’ve been wronged somehow.
Yes! If there were an emoticon for a hug I would plug it in right now. I do think the feeling is of having been wronged. (And thanks to all the other posters who asked similar questions.)
I think the best answer I can give is to ask you to take a look at this other video I saw at PUMA site. Let me say in advance that it’s a bit over the top and some of it but not all overlaps with the other video I posted. What’s most interesting–most moving–to me are the photos of HRC at the end. To me it expresses better than any words I can think of what I think some people are feeling. It’s called Mad as Hell
There is a distinctly…berating…tenor to your posts. You have excellent points to make but as in most debates if the other side feels set upon the defenses go up and listening and debate stops (true for men and women).
I do not think you will win anyone to your side with that but that’s just me.
I would still like an answer as to how they’ve been wronged. I would also like to know why they don’t feel any corresponding sense of outrage for the much greater prejudice that her opponent has had to face (and continues to face).
I’m going to completely put aside your imaginary comment just to emphasize where I think your missing the point. I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama should apologize; I don’t even think many of the PUMA women are suggesting that. The question is why these people feel angry and disappointed, is it not?
No–but these women would like to live in a world that makes a woman’s climb to the top seem less harsh and improbable.
Well I’d rather not get too far off topic; suffice to say that sexism exists aplenty, we’ve seen examples of it in links to this thread; but no one posting here is saying that was the reason Clinton lost, right?
Sexism - Debunked
DNC Stole It - Debunked
Caucuses - Debunked
Obama…something indefinable - Debunked
Mainstream Media - Debunked
Sure. I would also say that African-Americans would say exactly the same thing. To me the notion of a barrier being passed is a wash on this one. Both are important and things this country needed. Just happened it worked out only one or the other was going to get passed on this go.
Besides, Clinton came damned close and while she may not have shattered a barrier here I think it can be said she moved it a fair bit. Maybe not all women hoped for in breaking down that wall but still something no?
I also might add (think it was missed earlier) why this assumed to be all about women. Seems to me there is a large contingent of men eagerly supporting Clinton.
As does racism which was also distinctly at issue and still is.
Why do you think Clinton lost? (genuinely curious)
What I don’t get is why YOU don’t get it (re your grievance comment). My lack of engagement with the GE is not about a grievance. (I have in this thread tried to communicate what the former Clinton supporters are feeling but not in my last posts.) Anyway, you and the othe rObama supporters, are obviously engaged and excited about his candidacy. You’re emotionally involved. That’s what I’m looking for. I never said Obama couldn’t provide that sense of engagement but I won’t discount the idea that McCain might, too. And remember, being emotionally involved can also mean being so against a candidate that I am moved to vote for his opponent.
My reactions as an individual don’t mean anything; my reactions that are similar to a large number of people who could make the difference between your candidate winning or losing just might make you able to convince someone to vote for Obama. If I didn’t care about the issues, I wouldn’t vote. If I didn’t care about the issues, I wouldn’t even be in this thread practically begging you to take this stuff seriously enough to think about it.
Ok, I watched the whole 9 minutes of it, and while it certainly tugs at the heartstrings to hear all those (predominantly Fox News) media clips saying rude things about Hillary, it still doesn’t address the anger this group of women are expressing towards Barack Obama. I also disagree with the producers juxtaposing most of those clips over Keith Olberman’s extemely justified rant about the hateful and racist comments that came from Geraldine Ferraro and were allowed to stew out there for a week before Hillary spoke out against them or accepted her resignation from her campaign, but that’s an entirely separate issue that we have done to death around here.
But what good does it do towards the healing process to go back and relive all those nasty comments from Fuckedup News? As Hillary herself has said, “when you hear people saying - or think to yourself - “if only” or “what if,” I say, “please don’t go there.” Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.”
Why don’t you distribute these two videos, made by a Hillary supporter who has joined us in our shared fight for the White House, with the PUMA group.
That could go a long way towards helping everybody heal.
I don’t think we’ve reached the promised land of accountability yet. Politicians can still get away with telling bald faced lies as long as the proof wasn’t recorded on camera.
