The Myth of Hillary Clinton and the Angry White Women
It's a sure sign of trouble when a writer interrupts an argument to apologize for invoking a cliche. So it is a mystery why Rebecca Traister did not delete her reference to Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus in her Salon.com article seeking to explain "Why Clinton voters say they won't support Obama." (Instead, she parenthetically apologizes, "yes, I'm invoking [the pop-psychology book]; address your letters of complaint to rtraister@salon.com.")
Traister's reliance on a worn-out self-help cliche is not just an example of uninspired writing -- it is one of the most egregious examples of how the press is substituting assumptions about Obama's problems with Clinton voters for actual reporting. Traister trots out Women are from Venus as a way to assert that Clinton supporters holding out are Obama are women who "want to air their grievances and let their opponents know where they're coming from." Now, there are undoubtedly many women who are upset at Clinton's defeat, though I'm sure they'd take umbrage at the suggestion that their continued disappointment is the result of not "being heard." However, the evidence suggests Obama's main problem with Clinton voters has little to do with gender. Perhaps that's why Traister is resorting to such cheap -- and, frankly, demeaning -- rhetoric.
A piece accompanying Traister's by Walter Shapiro -- who accepts Traister's gender premise but argues that Clinton women will ultimately "come home" to Obama -- grounds their discussion in last week's Washington Post/ABC News poll. The Post/ABC find that 24 percent of Democrats who supported Clinton in the primaries say they now prefer McCain over Obama, while another thirteen percent are threatening to stay home altogether. But Shapiro and Traister overlook this crucial paragraph from the poll summary:
Obama is not disproportionately weaker among Clinton supporters who comprised her core groups, such as women, seniors and working-class whites. Instead he's losing those who value strength and experience over change, who doubt Obama's qualifications and who see him as a risky choice--mirroring his challenges among all adults more broadly.
In other words, Democratic women aren't deserting their party because of a defeat dealt to their gender. Rather, Obama is losing voters in his own right amongst some voters who are comparing his resume with the much-lengthier one of his opponent. Once we stop viewing the Democratic contest through the identity-politics lens, this isn't all that surprising. Some voters perhaps cast their ballot for Clinton solely because of her gender, but the vast majority valued her qualities as a candidate. Certainly, the one she touted most is exactly what these Clinton supporters say they prefer about McCain: experience.
Perhaps, as Treister caricatures, stories of "grumpy old ladies still hung up on Hillary Clinton" make for more entertaining prose than a dull report on how some blocks of voters are worried about job qualifications. That may be why reporters are so readily accepting this story line. And, if Treister is representative, they're doing reporting that can only confirm what they think they already know. She says she based her piece on "interviews with women at Clinton's June 3 nonconcession speech and her June 7 concession speech, and on comments I heard from some attendees at an EMILY's List conference a week after Clinton bowed out."
In fairness, Senator Clinton's concession speech was a powerful hint to reporters like Traister pointing them in the gender direction. Her June 7 speech was a major rhetorical pivot. After a campaign that carefully avoided focusing on her gender, Clinton wholly embraced role as a feminist champion. She may have lost the nomination, but she claimed a victory for women by making "eighteen million cracks" in the White House's glass ceiling.
But before she was a feminist hero, she was a blue-collar insurgent. And before that, she was the establishment heir-apparent. Clinton was -- is -- all those things, and there are women, union members, and inside-baseballers who are disappointed at her loss. Some may in fact be so angry that they will not support Obama, though, as Walter Shapiro notes, history suggests they will likely put their resentment aside as November approaches. But regardless of whether they vote Obama or McCain, polling shows these are not the blocks of voters Obama still needs to win over.
Men may be from Mars and women from Venus, but the data is here on Earth.
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
If people don't want to vote for Obama because they disagree with him on experience, then it is his job and his supporters to try to win them over. Remember Kennedy and Clinton. If they are stuck on stupid ( She HAS to be on the ticket, she was CHEATED, Obama was unfair) then forget it.
I recently encountered two types of HRC supporters. One made sense and MADE me understand her disappointment. She didn't spend time talking about how unfair the process was (Bill Clinton told us don't play politics if you can't stand the heat) she showed me where she thought the press was unfair to HRC- Okay I can respect that
THe other spent time saying crazy things like..Obam
People, either get with the change ( and make some change yourself) or leave the party and leave us alone!
Don't worry, many will. When you arrogant candidate loses, you will wonder why....how could that happen?
Doesn't every race have a winner and a loser - when Hillary entered the race there was a chance (not one she acknowledged) but there really was a chance that she could lose. And she did - end of story.
We have a nominee and a new race to win. Everyone who is not on the bus to an Obama victory in November needs to be quiet because there will be a winner and loser here as well and we'll all be in a mess of trouble if McCain is the winner!
All cliches got that way because of the substantial kernel or truth they contain.
omt,
Hey Becky,,,,its time for you to get over your self Absorbedne
"Traister's reliance on a worn-out self-help cliche is not just an example of uninspired writing -- it is one of the most egregious examples of how the press is substituting assumptions about Obama's problems with Clinton voters for actual reporting.
Exactly! I've heard both CBS and CNN repeating that bulls**t as if it's a real question. I'm sick of these asshole broadcasters!
Attn Becky:
Wisdom ?.....The Trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight.
Well Becky,
Instead of you wearing your emotional state on your sleeve,,,,,I suggest you,,,Apply Pure Rational Intellect when you arrive at your decision making, pertaining to Issues other than Sore Losing, Hate Mongering, Counterproductive, Ill Conceived Rhetoric..
Beating My Elders into the Ground ?
No,,,Becky,,,,,its just the Truth !!!......a
As far as the Future is concerned ?....Time for you and the likes to step aside and let the New Generations Take over,,,,Because as previously demonstrated by yourself and comments ?...Your Poor Decision making Has Failed US,,,,,,Big Time !...and youre no longer Pertinent.
The younger generation has shown itself to be idealistic without any sense of reality or realism. Unfortunately wars are started and waged by idealists, eager to change the world after their own ideas. Young people think they will live for ever--and that is why the military recruits high school students and college students--as they dream and not trink. Kvet is a prime example of one who does not think, but reacts emotionally. Older women (and older men) seek experience, and the ability to deliver concrete solutions--not platitudes or promises of change that have no blueprint. Kvet's New Generation will lead to the destruction of the earth so all that might remain are Venus and Mars to inhabit.
Too bad most people seem to still believe that experience=judgment when the reality is that a lot of bad experience--or experience doing something wrong or ineffectively--is consistently and considerably worse than no experience at all, let alone a little good/right experience.
Aside from that, I sincerely doubt that most women look at Hillary as a role model and/or cracker of glass ceilings. Probably most older women do, but it seems unlikely that many of the younger generations are going to feel as if Clinton represents them--not when she's most famous for being the wife of a former president, and more tangentially as creator of a botched healthcare reform effort, constant user of horrible judgment, calculating ambition-b
I don't think most young women will be holding up a candidate who whined and wielded bigotry and attacks untoward for supposed members of the same political body. I don't see somebody who played to all the sexist and racist opinions finding herself adored by generations of women raised to believe they don't need help to stand with the men and certainly shouldn't beg for special treatment.
The myth of having experience equals age has proved to be wrong: just look at how the Clinton's machine botched their campaign and how brillant Obama runs his successfully. He was not intimidated by the most powerful machine in the party. His perseverance in the uphill battle proved he has experience and good judgment.
The myth of Clinton and her "18 million votes" has been cracked opened as a spin, not only by there is no money coming from those 18 millions but also by recent polls showing Obama gained favorable ratings in those blocks of voters that Hillary claimed to be hers. He is now polled to win VA, PA, OH, WI and tie in Nevada. As before, whenever Obama has the chance to campaign, voters know more about him and support him. The older women who are sticking with Hillary as if she is the only one who is fighting for their rights are misinformed and living in the past. Women are now get to the top by their own ability so they don't see their gender as hindrance. They got to the top despite not having a husband as an ex-president to push for them as in the case with Hillary.
Obama's messages of unity and equality resonate with voters and his policies are not much different from Hillary's. That's why he won and is winning.
A medical intern needs an experienced doctor beside her/him while performing an operation. A newly graduated lawyer is given modest cases for trial, while older lawyers take on cases with greater significance. I have yet to find a young person who has the intelligence, ability, and determination to succeed in areas where older people thrive. Younger people do not read as omniverously and universally as older people, do not spend time in research but prefer discos and bars and cavorting. I could never vote for anyone who was young, for that idealism died in me years ago. Margaret Thatcher, Desmond Tutu, and Indira Ghandi were not young, but great successes as leaders. I have yet to see a young person succeed in politics.
Exactly!
Great post.
According to yesterday's Newsweek poll, Obama is running 21 points ahead of McCain AMONG WOMEN VOTERS---to wit, better than Gore and Kerry.
Women are not a weakness, but a strength, for Obama and he most definitely does not need HRC on the ticket.
How about all the progressives he's losing over his FISA waffling and ultimate flip flop.
Check the progressive blogs -- they're seething.
That's funny considering he hasn't voted yet.
Daisy, we're just having a family spat. We'll kiss and make up..not seething.
But you would like for it to be so.
Not.
We know McCain is not the one. We know better. Do you?
Finally. Yes, you got it.
This writer finally gets it. We "older women" also judge on experience and qualifications. To put it bluntly, he has next to none. He has never held a full time job, has spent most of his career running for something, spent 20 years sitting in a radicalized church that he came to disavow, has shady connections to a convicted felon, cannot point to much as a state senator, and relies on surrogates to do his dirty work.
As a potential husband, I would advise my daughter to drop him immediately. This guy has little staying power.
If being elected to the Illinois State Senate since 1996 is "never held a fulltime job", then how do you judge Hillary's being elected to the US Senator only since 2001, and that is based on her experience as being the First Lady? Obama won the race against the most powerful machine in the party, the Clintons', and you said he has "little staying power"? It should be called "perseverance".
Doing community work among unemployed steelworkers is not a full-time job?
Being a law professor is not a full-time job?
Practicing law is not a full-time job?
Being a state senator is not a full-time job?
Well, I guess if that is true, I've never held a full-time job, either. And neither has almost everyone I know.
I was among the youngest professors in the USA...and I thought I knew everything. But I did not, and I ended up leaving the teaching profession because of mistakes I made in judgment and delivery. I have spent the rest of my life in quest of more education--not for a great job (I do not have one, but I do have ten earned doctorates from major universities) but so that I can have more experience. As for being a law professor--a junior professior is not a full or senior professor. A state senator who votes PRESENT more than 90% of the time is filling a chair, not an office. Community service is voluntary and does not require credentials, credibility, veracity, or education--it is a nice thing to do, but it is not a job. A job is where you put your talents to the test, and most young people, like myself, fail in that area as we are too cocky, to arrogant, to self-centered and self-righteous to realize that older people can help us mature and be truly contributing members in a society, university, government body or other area. I learned too late, but I have only myself and not a nation to guide. The USA is not a private domain but a nation and it deserves experience.
What's the saying, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. If you believe Obama does not have enough experience to be President, I think that is a legitimate concern for voters to consider. But to make up other things in his background is a bit much.
1) He never held a full-time job? Wrong. Not only has he had a full-time job, but by all accounts he has juggled several jobs at once.
2) He spent 20 years sitting in a "radicalized church." I think that opinion is subjective. I for one don't know what was going on in Trinity for the past 20 years because I wasn't there. But I also know that some of the sermons that I have heard from BO's former pastor I agree and disagree with. But I will refrain from making generalized statements about matters I don't have firsthand knowledge of.
3) Shady convicted felons? Surely you jest. BO's relationship with Rezko was questionable, but if you are looking for someone with their hands clean, you won't find them in either McCain or Clinton.
I could go on and debunk the rest of your generalizations, but since I have bothered to do my homework and you have not, maybe you should pick up the slack.
At least he has 'next to none'. Hillary has none, except that which she claims from riding her husband's coattails. And please, don't bring up associations with felons....
Thank you! Some one is finally finally LISTENING!
Is it reasonable to posit that Sen. McCain's resume is also much longer than Sen. Clinton's, and thus that these folks may have ended up voting for Sen. McCain anyway?
Clinton has been working on public policy for over 30 years, actually its all she has ever done ( beside the obvious living, etc. ) and probably what she does best. But whatever, Interesting that men will decide, lets go PUMA this calls for hire heels.
She has not been working on public policy for 30 years.
Yes, I supported Hillary because she is incredibly smart and has an amazing grasp of the issues, both foreign and domestic. She also has years of experience and she is strong. The fact that she is a
woman was a bonus, but that is not the reason I supported her. However, watching her get dismantled by the media on a daily basis was outright disturbing. I could understand some
criticism, but what she got was fully focused denigration.
Unfortunately, I don't find that Barack Obama has even 1/4 of Hillary's outstanding qualities.
John McCain is also a tough sell for me, but I know who John McCain is, and to me, if I have to choose between the two, it will be John McCain.
Actually, she is not near as smart as you think. She graduated law school near the bottom of her class [by comparison, Obama graduated #1 in his law school class] and failed the Washington DC bar exam. She couldn't even get a job in a nationally known law firm at a time when they were hiring many women and did mundane transactional work in a backwater Arkansas law firm. Then she screwed up health care reform before running one the the worst---and dirtiest--
If this is your definition of "smart," I don't want any part of it.
Exactly!
funnyguy--Clinton entered Yale Law School, where she served on the editorial board of the Yale Review of Law and Social Action. During her second year, she worked at the Yale Child Study Center, as a research assistant on the seminal work, Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (1973). She took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services providing free legal advice for the poor. In 1970, she received a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. She researched migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education. She interned at the California, law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein a firm known for its support of constitutional rights, and civil liberties. She received a Juris Doctor degree from Yale in 1973, with honors. Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973. The article is frequently cited in the field. Your "backwater Arkansas law firms" was Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence. Specializing in patent infringement and intellectual property law, she worked pro bono in child advocacy.
Clinton has served on five Senate committees: Budget (2001–2002), Armed Services (since 2003), Environment and Public Works (since 2001), Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (since 2001) and Aging. She is a Commissioner of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (since 2001).
22 years of that alleged experience consists of little more than being married to a public official (when Bill was attorney general, then governor, then president).
Her alleged experience and strength led to her to vote to authorize an invasion of Iraq. So I guess it makes sense you would gravitate toward McCain.
There is a reason that the majority of the Clinton supporters in that "angry white women" are over a "certain age". It's an issue that's less about gender than it is about older generations. These were women who predominently stayed home and raised families, who may have felt that they sacrificed their own identities for their husband. That is rarely the case todaym and many women under 30 or even 40 really didn't quite understand what the big deal was in a woman running for president WHEN COMPARED to an African American running for president. We see women in high level positions all the time, while often still seeing African Americans more often in lower-level positions. We also see more pure hate against African Americans and other minorities than we do against white women. To us, white women are in a position of privelege compared to any other minority in America.
Two problems with your mini-rant. First, white women are not a minority. Second, the article points out that the "McCain instead of Obama" crowd isn't large enough to impact the race.
MSM loves keeping a controversy alive because that's what drives ratings. Still, the facts on the ground are the facts. How about we focus on defeating McPander?
I'm not sure how my post qualifies by your standards as a "mini rant". I'm simply discussing an issue that was brought up. It's reflecting, not ranting.
BTW, women ARE a minority in America...
Thanks for this passage:
Instead he's losing those who value strength and experience over change, who doubt Obama's qualifications and who see him as a risky choice.
That's exactly my problem with him.
I can understand that. To some degree, they are ALL a risk...but to me, McCain is still a bigger risk than Obama. It just really bothers me that he only seems to care about foreign "affairs".
Clinton would also have been a risk. Neither her, nor Obama, nor McCain have administrative experience, which is widely considered important for the job of president.
Thank you for writing this. I'm sick of everyone saying that women are defecting from the Democratic party due to issues related to gender. It's way more than just gender! As Incredulous points out, race is quite possibly an even bigger factor. And Countess brings up important class issues as well.
Im Sorry but,,,,,I cant help but Bash People such as the mention in the newspiece above for their Complete Stupidity.
Im from Generation X,,,,,,and The Big Difference Between Us and The Boomers Parents...
Have you ever heard of wisdom? It is ....."the trait of utilizing knowledge and experience with common sense and insight." Wisdom is learned through the ages. Before you beat your elders into the ground, maybe you ought to listen to what they are saying, and quit insisting that you know-it-all.
Ah, but the biggest factor of all is that your protest vote for McSame (or your protest stay-at-home non-vote) apparently won't make any difference to this election, because your block of "anyone but Obama" for whatever reason is a very small part of the Democratic voting public.
When you factor in the independent support FOR Obama, Bush fatigue, and McPander's missteps and lack of GOP support, this race isn't even going to be close.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
