Angry White Women
Since it became clear that Hillary Clinton would likely bow out of the race for the Democratic nomination for president, the dominant narrative has been the angry white women who are holding back from Barack Obama. Some even suggest that John McCain can make a major play for these disaffected Clinton supporters. The problem with this narrative is that it is mostly wrong, ignoring history and failing to understand Obama's real challenge among women voters.
No doubt, there are some Clinton supporters who currently find it difficult to contemplate supporting Obama, but most of these women are highly engaged, progressive Democratic voters; it is difficult to imagine them ultimately supporting McCain, who has a career-long, anti-woman record.
In fact, Obama is actually doing better than John Kerry with women voters; Kerry won them by 3 points, and according to polling from Democracy Corps research, Obama is currently winning them by 6 points. Obama's improvement over Kerry comes among college educated and younger women -- the most progressive voters in the electorate.
Obama's real struggle is with white blue collar women voters -- the same group that challenged Kerry. Currently, Obama trails McCain among white women without a college education by 19 points, 37 to 56 percent; according to Democracy Corps, Kerry lost these women by the exact same margin, 40 to 59 percent. Some argue that Clinton solved this problem because of her performance with white older women in the Democratic Party. But not only is it a mistake to extrapolate from primary results to the general election, Clinton would also likely lose to McCain among white women without a college education, albeit by a smaller margin.
The key to reaching these women voters is two-fold. First, Obama needs to communicate with them about who he is, including his values and his life story. He and his family actually have more in common with these women than they know. Second, he needs to address their real economic anxieties. As I noted in the American Prospect in 2004, Kerry actually led George Bush with older white women when his campaign was talking about healthcare, retirement and other domestic economic issues. But when he allowed the issue terrain to shift to Iraq and security at the expense of his economic message, he lost ground.
The economic situation is even more tenuous for these women today, with rising gas prices exacerbating their financial squeeze. John McCain has a history of opposing the very policies that would help these women -- including opposing pay equity and raising the minimum wage -- and supporting policies that are unlikely to appeal to these voters such as tax cuts for the wealthy and privatization schemes for health care and Social Security.
McCain is not going to win over women who supported Clinton in the primary and Obama can certainly improve his chances of beating McCain in the general election if he makes inroads among non-college educated white women voters. He can do so by offering a personal narrative that reflects shared values and a family background that's far from the elitist he is alleged to be, and delivering an economic message that highlights specific proposals designed to help ease the daily financial pressures of white working class women.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
A very good point made by a friend of mine when I told him about this article:
"Well, look at that fine example of political assassination. Hillary supporters are now un-favorably pigeon holed and categorized in such a way that any comments, concerns, questions, or antagonisms are immediately minimized as the non-sensical ramblings of narrow-minded bigots."
>>non-sensical ramblings of narrow-minded bigots
In many cases, it's kinda hard to not come to a similar conclusion.
What I all-too-frequently see is posters reduced to a few talking points about Obama's an empty suit, no experience, no convictions, etc with no facts or data to back them up. (See elsewhere on this page.)
They also insist Hillary was the victim of dirty political tricks and refuse to acknowledge whether Hillary campaigned dirty -- just in the least, little way. Or that her campaign strategy was fatally flawed after Super Tuesday (the fact that she had no strategy to go beyond then).
And then they fall back to saying how Obama people worship their "Messiah", the Democrats' new "Jesus", or call him sarcastically the "chosen one", even though I've never seen an Obama supporter make any such references.
What are you to make of resorting to that kind of attacking? None of it has any basis in reality or at least gets any sort of reasonable explanation.
And lastly (sorry to bring this into it), there's this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s
That YouTube is scary...and that's exactly how you bitter Hillary supporters sound. And to MoMule below, why is Obama illegitimate? HE WON! Clinton agreed to the rules and only wanted them changed when she was losing.
She didn't lose because of sexism...she ran a poor campaign. And so, out of spite, you are choosing to vote for a true sexist, McCain?
It goes to show that college education doesn't help you to think. Or spell.
From further down within this blog:
"Truthortradition See Profile I'm a Fan of Truthortradition
Barack Obama forced all women to the back of the bus by defeating Hillary. That's a fact."
How would you characterize that gem of logic and reason? That's the entire comment, BTW. No editing.
And also it is particulary aimed and only one demographic sector , which I fears puts them at risk of further stereotyping an possibly ostracism.Older white women.After all men , young women,other races and gays voted for H.C.Many white women voted for Obama .So whats up with making one group the target to be identified as traitors?
Unfortunately, that one sector is the most visible and vocal one of that ilk and are therefore the most readily identifiable.
The only group that can be categorized as not voting for Obama are the racists, and the Obama supporters put all the pro-Hillary voters into that category. I guess that is logical to them because if they aren't racists, how could they resist Obama's charm? What about voting for the one you thought could best lead this country after Bush? The people I know who didn't vote for Obama considered him a neophyte, an empty suit, and an opportunist!
Pamela1961 I couldn't agree with you more. Instead providing a balanced view of her campaign, they're either beatifiying her or demonizing her. Truth be told, however, what goes around comes around: HRC spend plenty of time and energy demonizing Obama. It's just karma.
It's a myth that college educated women did not vote for Hillary. Go back over the stats. Yes, he beat her by a few % points but not wide margins.It is a myth that women who supported Hillary are supporting McCain. Yes, some will and they are organizing right now.Their thinking is, Well at least he is honerable, or at least he loves his country. They tend to be moderate or conservative Democrats.( if you love Dean's 50 state strategy get ready for many more blue dogs from the Southin congress) It is a myth to assume that college educated,activist progressive women like myself are winey,bitter old women who are upset because their candidate did not win. Rather think of us as principled women who will support our local Dems and vote for downticket Dems who did not support Obama. We will not vote for Obama because;
A. the candidate is illigitimate in our eyes, B. we are Clinton Democrats who trace from FDR and we believe our Party should include all of the Clinton coalition for the reasons she outlined in her last speech and C. Since our Party and their chosen candidate and his supporters along wiith the DNC made a bad decision allowing sexism to florish as long as it helped their candidate, we will take a stand against it. We too are organizing.
I pose this question to you. IF she had won the nomination, how would you feel if BHO supporters had said that it was only b/c of her race baiting comments? Let's be honest, OK, both sexism and racism are very rampant, but I tend to believe that one is much more prevalent than the other. There are more racists, be they in the open or not, than there are sexist. That's reality.
I am grateful that BHO never said that he was treated unfairly, b/c of the color of his skin. The problem that HRC faced was that she "felt entitled." She was the favorite out of all candidates, because of her husband. Sexism did not become an issue until she started to lose favor with voters, and this was only posed by Geraldine.
Hillary did NOT race bait. The Obama campaign and the media did that. Hillary stated facts the press willfully misunderstood. Before the New Hampshire primary when they knew thay might be in trouble the Obama campaign prepared a multi point talking sheet describing all of the supposed racial slights and sent them to the press. The press immediately went for it. To me the most unforgivable thing about the way BO ran his campaign is smearing the Clintons and their supporters with the racist label.
I will pose a question to you. Name one thing Obama has delivered to AA's in his career. Real tangible things. It would take me pages to do the same for the Clintons. Let me suggest only one thing. When he put his office in Harlem Bill Clinton brought 500 million dollars in community enterprise funds with him to the area.
Every knowledgeable person who commented on the two campaigns pointed out that the two candidates were very close on the issues. in fact the only issue on which I heard Hillary express disagreement was health care where Obama opposed mandatory enrolment. There were minor issues of process but nothing to speak of.
So I do not understand what are the progressive activist issues that you inherited from FDR that divide you from Obama. Can it be an issue of gender or race that is masquerading in a lot high flown rhetoric.
I started this campaign a Hillary supporter. I gradually became disenchanted. The last straw was this nonsense about Florida and Michagan. Hillary signed a written agreement that stated any results of these primaries would not count. Then she reneged. Her supporters are totally unfazed by this breach of faith. But this is the reason I hope Barrack does not choose her as vice president. In the way we men look at agreements, she cannot be trusted to keep her word. Gender equality means that in business, it is not a woman's privilege to change her mind.
This analysis needs to be brought a level closer to reality. There is a voter out there who supported Clinton who is going through all sorts of indecision right now. I am not talking about the sophisticated voters who voted for Clinton because they liked Clinton's policy positions (those voters will comfortably move over to Obama and McCain never had a chance with them). But there is a certain low brow voter out there who invested a lot of emotion in the idea of getting a woman elected simply because of identity politics. For many, Clinton was the surrogate for an idea much bigger than her - the idea that a woman could shatter the ultimate symbolic glass cieling in our society, the POTUS. Somewhere in a lot of voters' minds, there was a bit of this irrational, symbolic fascination with Clinton. Obama, not McCain, put an end to that symbolic drama, and that is Obama's obstacle with these voters. But it is a tough place to be because, in the end, their behavior is irrational... And Obama supporters are not necessarily any more rational - the symbolic meaning of a non-white President is very important for many such voters as well - but since Obama won and Clinton lost, it is the irrational Clinton supporter who is left to cope with these psychic dramas.
And, therefore, one can not use rationality to appeal to people thinking irrationally. They must come to terms with things on their own and in their own time.
Maybe some people don't trust Obama because he has no real record. That's rational. Maybe he shares some of Clinton's issues, but he never stayed anywhere long enough to create a record.
See, you haven't done your homework. His record in the 110th Congress is much more impressive than Clinton's -- reaching across the aisle and receiving co-sponsorship from Republican Senators, most notably Senator Lugar.
Clinton's bills in the 110th Congress have no Republican co-sponsors and aren't very impressive, at all.
Go to Thomas.loc.gov and get educated. Don't rely on traditional media to keep you informed.
Obama is going to win this election and change this nation for the better! Hillary lost fair and square and I amongst other women feel it is an insult to blame the loss on sexism when she lost because of the mistakes of her campaine! Wolfson this weekend admitted that the campaine made many mistakes that were costly! Many of the women on her campaine do not agree with the sexism arguement and lastly, the DNC committee who had majority of Hillary Clinton Supporters voted for the split of Michigan and Florida even though they support Clinton but the Clinton supporters cannot even fathom this fact. All they do is whine that Obama did this and that. As a woman, you all embarrass me and do not represent me at ALL!!! Now Obama is working on paying Hillary's debt and you still give him no respect? Why don't the so called 18 million voters pay the 30million debt? How can 18 million people leave their beloved canidate in debt so that Obama would bail her out? So shameful!!!
It still amazes me that some people are so bitter over Hillary's loss that they would cut off their noise to spite their face by voting for McCain.
Is it because Hillary and McCain have the same principles?
Lets see...
Hillary says she wants to get the troops out.......McSame wants to keep them in for 100 years;
Hillary says universal health car...McSame says no;
Hillary says no more tax breaks for the rich and corporations...McSame says make the bush tax breaks permanent;
Hillary wants to do something about global warming and energy independence...McSame wants to drill for more oil;
Hillary would appoint liberal judges to the supreme court...McSame wants more Alitos;
Hillary is pro choice....McSame is pro life;
I don't think Hillary would bomb, bomb, bomb Iran....McSame would;
Hillary would give relief to people hood winked into getting those rip off mortgages...McSame wants to deregulate the system even more (you know a little deregulation is bad but more deregulation is good);
Hillary vote for Veterans benefits...McSame voted against;
etc., etc., etc.;
Yep sounds to me that they share the same principals..VOTE FOR MCCAIN HE HAS THE SAME PRINCIPALS AS HILLARY (NOT)
As an Obama supporter, I can say without hesitation, if Hillary had won the nomination I would vote for her because she represents my views and McSame does not!
Scapeg~
Thanks for a wonderful reply! You may need to cut and paste it over and over and over.
These so called angry women need to be angry with Mccain! have they forgotten Mccain at his rally where people called Hillary a BItch and he said nothing while they laughed and said he is beating Hillary in the polls. Let them go ahead and vote for Mccain. They are giving reason to stereotypes that Hillary's voters are stupid idiots. I have defended Hillary in many blogs but the comments by some of her supporters blaming Obama for everything instead of Hillary's poor run campaine baffles me!!!!
Just ask those women if they want to leave their daughters in the hands of two or three more Scalias on the court. A vote for McCain will ensure that.
Blackmun the author of Roe v Wade was appointed by a Republican.
And will be repealed by one.
That type of logic is as consistent and as relevant as saying Lincoln was a Republican.
That was then and this is now. You can't compare apples to oranges -- one must be able to make distinctions in life, to be able to have a solid and legitimate position/argument.
If you think Scalia or Alioto, wouldn't write an opinion to overturn Roe v. Wade, you haven't been following the Supreme Court today -- the timeframe that is relevant.
Women and men are angry because Obama pulled an Alice Palmer on Clinton. He plays dirty, is unqualified and extremely divisive as his history shows. They are angry because they are sick of happy talk and do not want 4 more years of happy talk. They are sick of a slick politician who says whatever makes the audience happy are tired of appearance being more important than substance. They are tired of the PC accusations.
Go Green!!!
Well, this is different. Obama attacked from the left side by the Greens. Who is Ralph Nader going to choose for a running mate?
I'm talking about Cynthia McKinney, not Nader.
how did he play dirty? ,, oh I know.. by following the rules, running a positive campaign and being consistent with his message of Change... stop blaming everybody else for her mistakes .. if you want to be angry ,, be angry at Hillary . she blew it !!!
was Bill Clinton qualified when he run for the presidency ? ,, was Kennedy ? and so many other great american presidents ?
Come on newgeneration, how do you argue with people who get their facts
from those tabloid papers on the racks at the check-out counter in the super markets?
Yes, in politics it is dirty to throw out issue based attacks!
You are probably completely closed minded but you can look up how he won his state senate seat. Look in the chicago Tribune. CNN covered it too. He has all his opponents disqualified by noodling the rules (sound familiar?) and working hard to disqualify their petition signatures - like if it was not in cursive he used paid legal workers to have them thrown out. He betrayed Alice Palmer, up to that point his mentor. She campaigned for Clinton. He played it unethical and dirty, which I guess is done in Chicago, but then when you do all the happy talk about change and hope and being not a regular politician it makes his tricks look all the worse. Go Green!
People are angry because they don't have any money. That isn't O's fault.
Americans do better financially with a Democrat in office, than a Republican -- just ask, Bill Gates, Donald Trump and Warren Buffett.
DXP~
No use in saying anything to you except in colors:
Go purple!
Happy Talk. You are hilarious.
Go Orange!!
The most amazing thing about American politics is how many are perfectly happy voting against their own interests. If one candidate promises to shoot you and another to give you candy, many people prefer to be shot if they think their candidate have the same "values". The ability of Republicans to convince ordinary working class people that they share their values (which they don't, of course) is amazing.
If Hillary supporters vote the complete Democratic ticket but leave the presidential vote blank then Obama will win with his haters of Clinton or not. But Clinton supporters won't enjoy the pleasure of being responsible for putting him in the White House.
And that is supposed to be some joyful occasion? Still don't get it do you?
Even the worst poison can be sweetened with a little sugar.
And the sugar is.... hating O.
A better analogy would be if one candidate promises to shoot you and another to give you candy, many people prefer to take the candy even though it's poisoned and the gun has no bullets.
This is an insightful analysis. Obama needs to keep telling his lifestory. People connect to narratives. Most voters are less interested in ideas than in relationships. They want a connection to Obama not intellectual agreement with him.
The problem is that his story is a narrative that they see right through. Who cares about his Mom--they want to know who he is now--where did he fit in-why was he at Trinity, associating with Phleger--these people are the problem They won't trust Obama because his associations belie his sweet-talk.
Ghost~
We don't see you. Ghost away.
And to some principles are important. Still smarting from the theft of 2000 and 2004, why would we support a DNC/MSM/Obama coup in the primaries. Some of us feel that this is a matter of principle.......and important to democracy and the Democratic party.
Absolutely!
I just took a step back, the problem here is the Pundits stink.. this whole issue has been blown out of proportion. I think a lot of these women, the majority of whom are lower income have real grievances. They have made this a race and gender issue as opposed to a socioeconomic one. H R C inspired these women to believe they could change their circumstances and the reality is O's platform is the same in that sense. They identified with her , as crazy as that sounds given her background, and believed she understood their struggle. Now she's out, they feel defeated. Hopefully with a little time they will realize O is fighting for them just as hard and given his background, actually understands exactly where they come from- In truth these woman have much more in common with O's mother and grandmother than H R C. At some point I hope they will realize that. The pundits need to shut up and stop mocking them, while there are some Op Chaos and racist types a lot of theses women are decent and hard working and will come to realize their voices will be heard and their issues are being addressed.
Until you understand race is not the factor..............you don't understand anything. During the primaries, people who didn't vote for Obama were labeled racist...because you Os couldn't fathom the idea that there was somebody people considered much more qualified than your Messiah.
Live by unreality, lose by reality.
What?? Um, we won. The people chose whom they felt was most qualified.
Live by your own principle.
Your reality that "race" is not a factor is based on unreality.
Did you see some of the exit poll interviews in West V for example?
Names were called on both sides, I'm a woman and was called sexist. Not sure what your point is. Some H R C supporter were racist, some O supporters were sexist. It's politics, it's rough - why would you care what some pinheads said ? Vote the issues - ignore the noise on occasion in the heat of battle we all resort to our 4th grade selves. In short we all behave like doodyheads. It hardly seem worth 4 more years of war and economic destruction.
Due to long moderation I will try to post again
Names were called on both sides, I'm a woman and was called sexist. Not sure what your point is. Some H R C supporter were racist, some O supporters were sexist. It's politics, it's rough - why would you care what some pinheads said ? Vote the issues - ignore the noise on occasion in the heat of battle we all resort to our 4th grade selves. In short we all behave like doodyheads. It hardly seem worth 4 more years of war and economic destruction.
right on
Oh my goodness, I totally agree with you. It appears that a lot of these women specifically older women have waiting all their life for a white female President. I have spoken to some in my own family who believe it is their turn and Obama didn't wait his turn as a junior senator. I learned from them that they felt hopeful that they would see a white female candidate finally before time ran out for them. I sincerely don't believe they would be so adamant in their support, if it was a non-white female candidate with the same message. Nor do I believe they would be so anti-Obama if he was a white male candidate with the same message he has. The women with the loudest voices appear to be those who have made this about race and gender. Most will realize that he is closer to their own issues than McCain. However, there are those who would never vote for a non-white candidate no matter what and Obama can do nothing about that. I have some in-laws who would never vote for him, no matter if he was the second a non-white Christ. In that case, Obama moves on to the next group of convertible voters also register a new group of voters who will nullify their negativity. I think the media should stop giving these women legs. Allow them time to grieve privately and stop multiplying and illuminating their grievances.
I was a Hillary supporter, but don't follow her blindly like Obama's supporters do him. I hope to write her in in November rather than vote for John McCain, I paid a whopping tax bill in April because of capital gains and now Obama wants to raise that tax again. Too old for these ''women's issues'' to matter; as another poster said, let the younger women do it over again, builds character. I vote my own interests.and anyway, the ''power structure'' who insured Obama's nomination come hell or high water will make sure he wins the election by the same means. So who cares about anyone's vote??!!
That "whopping tax bill" you refer to was about half of what it should have been. There is no reason income earned through investment, interest, or dividends should be treated any differently than income earned by working.
And as you say "I vote my own interests?" Spoken like a true unpatriotic Republican. No doubt you want McCain to win.
Spoken like a true Obama supporter: a know-it-all. And no I don't ''want McCain to win,'' particularly. Just don't see Obama as a reasonable alternative. .
Sorry Josieb, but I don't follow Obama like a blind person. Let me explain something to you, b/c you appear to be, as an atypical HRC supporter, clueless. I am a republican female. I listened to all debates, when all candidates were fighting for the nomination of their party. Like many RESPONSIBLE voters I drifted towards the person who spoke to what fit with my ideals and what I want for my daughter's future. Although I don't agree with everything that he has said, he is more authentic than all the other candidates combined.
I also think that it shows much irresponsibility as a voter to be contemptuous by writing in your candidate who LOST! It goes against everything your candidate has asked of you.
Yeah, you do, Republican. And you ''drifted'' towards him after listening (bully for you) to all the debates. Drifting indicates indifference, not enthusiasm.
Clinton supporters know that she has to endorse Obama because she is a Democratic leader, and I wouldn't expect anything else from her. I don't have to support him if I feel he is a illegitimate candidate, and I do believe that. The DNC scored a coup, and that is not democracy as we know it. Better to stand on principle now that let the DNC (and MSM) think they control what should be the people's choice.
How can a Repug who is responsible for our present situation in Iraq and here at home eel so morally superior to lecture a Hillary supporter?
And has the gall to talk about IRRESPONSIBILITY!
Give me a break!
As an older white woman who was the first in my working class family to graduate from college and who stood for Shirley Chisholm during my first precinct caucus and who voted for Hillary Clinton during my last, I have only one question. How can it be that the man of the hour -- Sen. Obama -- has been running for president for almost a year and a half and we still need to "get to know him"? Wasn't it his job to present himself so we could get to know him by now? My friends and I have agreed to close our eyes and vote democrat for any number of reasons, but confidence in Obama isn't one of those reasons at this point -- hope that we are not making a mistake is closer to the mark.
I cannot, for the life of me, understand why white middle aged women are so upset with Obama? Exactly what upsets you so much about him? His policies are almost identical to Hillary's. Except for healthcare. (Hillary's is much better) Please tell us!
I hate to say this, but even among certain women, and even when the canidadates shard the same philosophies in so many ways, rhery still cant see beyond skin color. Yeah there may be similarities in the womens movement and the civil rights movement but unfortunatley in America there is a certain segment of the population (shrinking to be sure but still in full effect) that cannot see their self interest before they see skin color
Because he is an opportunistic empty suit....is that clear enough for you? Yes, his policies are almost identical because he usurped hers.........
The media didn't cover anything substantial about Obama.
Dad~
EXCUSE THE SHOUTING.....
GO EDUCATE YOUR OWN SELF. IT IS UP TO YOU.
This is what I don't understand. He has written and spoken about his life as a child, his internal and outward struggles. I think that the BIGGEST issue with the majority of ppl is "name recognition," which is sad. See where that got us with Bush, and I was a one of those who was HOPING that he was going to be like his father...being the Republican that I am.
Personally, I don't know anyone in my circle that deems it NECESSARY to know BHO in an intimate fashion. I think that it's a problem when ppl ASSUME that they know everything, because in reality you can never truly know anyone...sad but true.
If you pay close attention, you can learn enough.
Many folks could see through the swaggering, cheerleadery, arrogant younger W and know who he would be.
You can tell by OB actions, how he runs his campaign, how he treats folks, how he will be when he is President.
As a former Hillary supporter, I did get to know Obama and I am from Florida where he never even campaigned or ran an ad! The idea that people just don't know anything about him or his policies or any of the hundreds of bills he proposed or sponsored is ridiculous. We have been through a primary where some of us were only focused on our candidate. The Republicans who just sat back after Johm McCain won waiting for the General Election, and some die hard Clinton supporters who didn't listen or read anything of substance regarding any other candidate. I learned about Clinton, McCain and Obama. When people said, but we don't know anything about his policies, well we didn't know anything about any of their policies unless we look them in. All we got from the news media was soundbites. I suggest that you do like I did. Here is a link:
There is no reason why anyone with computer access should say that. It is inexcusable /irresponsble to support a candidate without knowing the opposition.
Just hope~
Thank you for an obvious, intelligent response.
These people who claim someone ought to be educating them about BO is just irresponsible, and borders on how ignorance doesn' t transform into informed intelligence.
I got to know O. Maybe you were too busy focusing on H, to pay attention to O. Where you lay blame, may be misplaced.
I did get to know him. But let's get real. It is the candidate's job to shape his or her message so the electorate gets to know him/her and her/his positions. The ongoing commentary about Obama by Obama supporters and pundits is that "when the voters, white women, undereducated, etc. get to know Obama, they will support him." And it is a sorry excuse -- particularly when you all seem to have the expectation that it is Clinton's duty to fix it for him.
How about his 1998 "joke" about little Chelsea Clinton, who was just a kid? How about when he laughed at one of his moronic supporters asking 'how do we stop the b?' You know they're now asking 'how do we stop the aa'? How about him calling his Barbie doll wife the C word? OR how about him dumping his first wife due to severe injuries she sustained while he was a POW? The man has no respect or care for women and anybody who thinks he does is simply not looking at the facts. How about the fact that 3 or 4 Supreme Court Justices will be in their late 70's AND late 80's and it's a fact at least one new justice will be named in the next 4 or 8 years. The evangelicals want Roe v Wade overturned, and with McGramps flipperish ways, no telling what he might do. Women will look at the candidates and their history and past votes, etc. and clearly see McCant would like us all to be barefoot and pregnant again.
I think a whole bunch of people just don't listen. Why are women angry? These posts were written by a lot of people who don't have a clue. Making up reasons when reality is staring you in the face is completely unacceptable.
Women are angry because what we've always thought and haven't bitched about, like forever, has turned out to be true!!! The gender thing is real - get used to it. Those women who have "made it" in the corporate world and the professions have forgotten or in denial about what gains women have made in the past 25 years. Women don't start as secretaries any more and know that's where they'll be when they retire, that's 50 years ago!
But the men and the press don't change. Many have deserted several fields because "the women have taken over." You do know that when that happens the women usually don't receive the same pay as the men they replaced - and that's the whole point.
Women are angry because they want to be respected as individuals in their own right. After seeing how Hillary was trashed during the campaign and how they don't give up doing that even now, why is this still a question.
Didn't Hillary (especially tag-teaming with Bubba) GIVE at least as good as she GOT in the campaign?? It's politics, for G*d's sake, and she's a master politician.
I'm not being snarky, I'm asking a legit question that not one Clintonista has answered after posting umpteen times.
Who trashed HRC? It wasn't BHO. If she was, it was everyone else around her. I apologize that you feel that she was disrespected, but she was treated with nothing but respect by BHO...even after her and Bill started with the race issues. Where was the concern for him when they started this? I didn't see any of you guys talking about how she was wrong for making inconsistent statements. However, I am glad that they did, because I have several friends who were Clinton supporters, but quickly lost them when they started with the race statements.
PLEASE stop lumping ALL women in this, because I am a woman, and I had no desire to vote for HRC.
I respect your honesty. Im an African American woman. The day I voted I did so for Clinton. But I told my daughter, if he wins I will still be happy. I was so happy with both candidates. But Hillary lost me along the way.
Anyway, in light of your comment above, does Obama now become your scapegoat?
These so called "angry white women" have NO argument, no credibility, if they are willing to vote for a man who has stated unequivocally that he is "pro life," who just last year voted against equal pay for women, FOR warrantless wiretaps, privitazation of soc. sec., a war monger whose presidency would no doubt, result in the suffering of yet more women and families, grieving the loss of a husband, daughter, son, sister or brother.
This is a man who LAUGHED as one of his supporters asked him in NH this winter, "How do we beat the b*tch in Nov."
A man who when asked why Chelsea Clinton was so ugly some years back said, "Because her FATHER is Janet Reno."
This is man who treated his maimed, disabled, crippled first wife Carol, a former "tall and willowy model" like trash upon his return from Viet Nam; a man who mere months after his return from Viet Nam started cheating on her with "arm candy Cindy," the trust fund baby and beer heiress. Carol to this day, says she still loves him, excusing his behavior because "He wanted to be 25, not 40; it happens." Go read HER story (heart wrenching and compelling) here on Huff Po.
This is a man who called his current wife a c*unt and "bottle blond trollop."
Wow, if you can vote for him, you deserve what you get.
To put into perspective their feelings, a quote I read on hillaryis44 "I dont care what McCain does or doesnt do, Im not voting for BO". That to me said it all.
I find it somewhat surprising that the Democrats are so busy fine tuning the trees of the campaign that they seem to miss the entire forest. The fact is that the economy is in miserable shape. And the one thing that has been consistent when evaluating Republican versus Democratic administrations is that Republicans have consistently destroyed the nations economy.
Reagan was able to delude people into thinking that he had successful econimic policy but in fact generated incredible amounts of debt while executing a tax policy specifically aimed at a transfer of wealth to those least in need. GHW Bush subsequently lost his reelection bid to Clinton because of the economy..."stupid."
Clinton, with fiscal discipline, had a robust economy which positively impacted people at all economic stratas. He left office with a tremendous surplus and a reliably balanced budget.
GW Bush has blown our economy to smithereens and no measure of denial will divert peoples attention from that reality.
Obama should simply ask the people if they think they can afford 4 more years of Republican economic policy. No one has such self destructive instincts as to believe they could. McCain has already candidly confessed to knowing nothing about economics which is a characteristic he shares with all those Republicans I have listed above.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
