The Selfish Gene Is Female
With apologies to Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene), I have to point out a noticeable selfishness on the part of some Democratic women voters. When Hillary Clinton declared she was "in it to win", many women around the country felt a rush of pride and hope. As Senator Clinton progressed throughout the primary season, she galvanized women all over the country, who came out to work for her and vote for her.
But now that Clinton is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic party, we are hearing a terrible moaning and whining on the part of Clinton's women supporters, even to the point that some are saying they will not vote for Obama in the Fall. As much as many of us would have liked to see a woman President, it has become apparent that to insist on a woman candidate is mainly about "us" not about what the majority of Democratic voters may want or need. It is selfish of us to insist on a Clinton victory, and appalling to hear such women leaders as Geraldine Ferraro implying she might not vote for Obama because she is so disappointed that Hillary cannot win. A McCain victory would be anathema to the causes that Hillary Clinton has always supported like choice, a repudiation of No Child Left Behind, health care for all, and women's rights.
Selfish women like the ones who are grousing about Hillary's loss are precariously close to embarrassing our entire gender. If we can fight for a nomination as good or better than any man (and Hillary has fought as hard as any man would or could), then we ought to be able to lose as good or better than a man. That is, losing without pouting, without recriminations, without blaming -- the media, our opponent, men, etc. I so want women voters and Hillary Clinton to be exemplary losers. There is nothing to be gained now by this complaining and finger pointing. It has been over for months, and insisting on having Clinton fight to the finish is not only somewhat unique in political campaigns (most candidates bow out long before the so-called 'end'), it has been undoubtedly damaging to the fight against McCain in the Fall.
Clinton's argument that she can still win, as she has been proclaiming on the campaign trail for weeks, is completely incomprehensible to anyone who can count and dishonest to those who cannot. In order to overturn the long tradition of counting "delegates" as the measure of who is the Democratic nominee, Clinton would have to do a number of very damaging things -- to herself, her supporters and to the Democratic party. She would have to overturn an agreement she herself made not to campaign or count Michigan and Florida's votes; she would have to overturn the concept of using pledged delegates as the metric for victory and replace it with "popular vote"; she would have to convince 75 to 80% of superdelegates to change their votes or vote for her because of her version of an electoral map metric -- alienating not only the women who support Obama, but all of the other Obama supporters, who are more than half of the Democratic party at this point. Would that victory be worthwhile? Would that victory be a feminist victory? What would we have proved? Only that women are the most selfish of all voters.
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
Night all. If I don't respond to some challenge, it's because I need to go to bed.
Thank you for saying what so many are thinking. Her run at this point is purely selfish. I think she's continuing on just to run up her numbers in the history books. Knowing that she won't win, she won't continue past June 3rd, i.e., not to the convention. She just wants Wikipedia to show how many contests and votes she won. She also wants to put an asterisk next to Obama's candidacy, to be able to say that she, like Al Gore, won the popular vote. It's pure manipulation of message. Her women supporters will be glad to give her those numbers, no matter if it damages Obama. It's all about sending a message. Protest politics. Incredibly selfish.
I don't know how kindly the history books will treat her if she ends up destroying the chances of a democratic presidency. Her words and actions alienate Obama supporters and you can take it to the bank that the same people that gave her a victory in Ky and WV will vote for the white male in Nov. She can cry sexism then because that is what it will be.
Let's not forget the asterisk that should go next to her popular vote claim. The racism asterisk that was clearly influential for an abhorrently significant number of people in Appalachia. The asterisk that is required to explain that Obama won several caucus states that aren't included in popular vote totals. The FL and MI asterisk that she agreed to ascribe to when she thought she would win handily back in February but doesn't like now that history did not play out as she had planned. How can she claim a popular vote win with all of these important factors not being taken into account. More importantly, why do we keep letting her? I know her motivation. What is ours?
Excellent post! As a woman, I applaud you saying what needed to be said. Hillary or Barack supporters who would vote for McCain because the candidate they supported doesn't get the nomination, are not interested in the real issues that should concern them the most. It is sad that this primary election has taken the turn that it has. But, I have to say, it was quite embarrassing to hear Geraldine Ferraro construct sexism acccusations against Obama, when the most sexist comments came from Hillary supporters and surrogates talking about "testicular fortitude.
Very well put, 2centsworth.
I totally agree.
As a woman it would be great to see a woman president. But at this point, she should gracefully concede. She agreed to play by certain rules and if she is going to break that pledge, if she is THAT desperate for power, what does that say about her?
Does she not care what McCain would do to the Supreme Court? To health care (do nothing)? To the environment? To global warming?
By dragging this on, some Dems I know who would vote for whoever got the nomination are now saying they WON'T vote democratic unless Obama is the candidate. At this point it seems he IS the candidate, so, okay.
But it is not at all gracious to act as she is now, even if 70 year old women support her (do they really or are there just some Americans, who, let's face it, won't vote for a black man).
The author is completely right when she says:
"[I]t has become apparent that to insist on a woman candidate is mainly about "us" not about what the majority of Democratic voters may want or need."
The argument I hear least among bloggers and commentors is that the character traits she displays and represents in others render her UNFIT to be president. End of story.
I had a thought earlier today that may relate to this. Hillary's main female constituency are women of a certain age. We seldom had organized sports available for our generations and so many of us didn't learn good sportsmanship rules and walking away from a loss with heads up and pride. I'm not sure we know how to "loose" gracefully. Many of us are more used to pushing our feelings underground and being passive-aggressive rather than doing the sportsmanship thing. I think we need some practice because I am beginning to be embarrassed at how this is winding down. Her surrogates are starting to tick me off.
As a 58 year old white woman, I rather resent the characterization. Perhaps because I faced discrimination years ago in the work place and learned how to deal with it. There is no excuse for the way her supporters are behaving. Regardless of their age or sex.
That's actually the part of the, err... "flavor" of this whole thing that's left me feeling the most apprehensive for the possibility of a female President in the next few decades.
Since all our social institutions were built by men, they were built to a shape that made men feel comfortable. It's not bad or good, it just is. So the structure of sports teams and competitions, like the structure of the government, are kind of the same.
By insisting that rules she agreed to follow now no longer apply, by using any tactic, no matter how unpleasant and how Republican-like to try to destroy her opponent, by refusing to bow out gracefully, she's showing by her behavior that the first woman who was a viable Presidential candidate has no sense of sportsmanship whatsoever. And that looks like a lack of honor and integrity, in this context. It also makes her look like she operates from a center of emotion rather than reason. None of these things are good, when you're the first in line. I don't think she *does* operate from a center of emotion rather than reason, because I think she's known good and well for many weeks she wasn't going to win, and therefore her behavior is a perfectly reasonable response for someone who wans to make sure her opponent loses in the Fall so she can run in 2012. But without knowing that real motivation, her behavior appears to be based on fantasy and emotion.
I agree with your reasoning, Linda.
I can understand why Obama and the party elders are treating Clinton with kid gloves, and not "pushing her" to end her now-quixotic quest. They are hoping she will withdraw gracefully (!), and begin campaigning for the nominee and for Democratic victory in Nov like she's promised to do.
But honestly, can you see her travelling through Appalachia with Bill this summer, giving speaches on how great Obama will be for this country? I just don't see that in her. I think it's time for the superdelegates to stop quivering with fear over the Clintons' wrath, and just end this charade. Now. We've got work to do.
Tough article. But hearing a women on TV saying they she was a Democrats, stood for Democratic values but was voting for McCain was pathetic. Because it is women who will suffer the most with a McCain Administration, not men, women of every color will suffer. These women will contend with a Court and Religion, getting into their Privacy, including bodies. Look at the Schiavo Case. And many women will suffer economically, and many women will suffer by seeing thier young kids, grand kids or nephews right now, fight in a war in 8 to 10 years or less. Women will suffer more, voting for McCain, than even a man of color will. I think women will set themselves back. Things are set to go back, Bush's judicial cohorts know how to manipulate the judicial system. They are doing it now. Kenny Rogers said, "you got to know when to fold them,,,know when to walk away....kn
Might I add, that Democrats might win a lot of seats. But many of them might be Casey Democrats, in reference to the Pennsylvania Pro Life Senator. So they might not be so strong quick to fight with a President McCain or Republicans with their agendas. But with a Democratic , Obama, President in the White House, Casey Democrats will keep their Pro Life views in check.
Selfish--that's an understatement.
Each day that Hillary Clinton perpetuates this "fairy tale" (just quoting) of winning the nomination, every day that she repeats the mantra "Florida-Michigan" is another day that the resentment harboured by her supporters hardens their hearts . As each day passes, it becomes more and more difficult to re-unite the party an move towards the general election. Fools like Geri Ferraro and these organized "women's groups" just add a lot of fuel to the fire. I wonder, how would they feel when John McCain sets the stage for the reversal of Roe v Wade? Would they like to lose even more privacy rights? Do they want the wage gap to widen? Do they want to see their kids drafted into his 100 Years War?
One day we will have a woman president, just not today. So, to be blunt, grow up..
Well when John McCain is president and sets the stage to reverse roe v. wade, I'll wonder what the hell happened to the tough talking democrats that we sent to the senate? If they can't say no to his nominations and stand their ground, then what is their purpose?
Obama dose not care about roe v. wade, haven't you heard "Sweetie" He is just as sexist as the rest of the liberal male elite.
I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM ..... DEMOCRATIC
The effects of the negative attacks are escalating. The cause and effect factor leads me to believe that if it continues, someone is going to be politicaly destroyed and the other left politicaly wounded.
What makes this more alarming is that its occurring within the same political party.
If the goal of the democratic party PRIMARY is to establish a strong candidate to challenge the republican party. From my perspective THIER aproach cancels out the end objective.
All of these differences should be debated and settled within the party before allowed to be argeued in public.
DO YOU THINK THE PLAYERS OF THE CHICAGO BEARS COULD WIN A FOOTBALL GAME IF THE PLAYERS BEGAN ARGUING AND FIGHTING EACH OTHER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY LOOSE AGAINST A FAR LESSER APPONANT.
WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR FANS GET FED UP AND DECIDE TO PLEDGE THIER SUPPORT FOR ANOTHER TEAM?
DECIDE WHO THE QUATERBACK IS GOING TO BE (PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
DECIDE WHO THE RECIEVER IS GOING TO BE (VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
AND LETS GO OUT AND WIN THIS GAME OF POLITICS AS A STRONG COHESIVE TEAM.
THANKS
SCORPI2000
great article and on point - Geraldine Ferraro over the last couple of days has been front and center - putting party and country behind the va-jayjay.
I THOUGHT WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM ..... DEMOCRATIC
The negative attacks are escalating. The effects of the negative attacks are escalating. The cause and effect factor leads me to believe that if it continues, someone is going to be politicaly destroyed and the other left politicaly wounded.
What makes this more alarming is that its occurring within the same political party.
If the goal of the democratic party PRIMARY is to establish a strong candidate to challenge the republican party. From my perspective her aproach cancels out the end objective.
All of these differences should be debated and settled within the party before allowed to be argeued in public.
DO YOU THINK THE PLAYERS OF THE CHICAGO BEARS COULD WIN A FOOTBALL GAME IF THE PLAYERS BEGAN ARGUING AND FIGHTING EACH OTHER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. THEY WOULD CERTAINLY LOOSE AGAINST A FAR LESSER APPONANT.
WHERE IS THE HEAD COACH? WHERE ARE THE LEADERS OF THE TEAM? DO YOU THINK YOUR FANS ARE ENJOYING THIS ? WHAT HAPPENS IF YOUR FANS GET FED UP AND DECIDE TO PLEDGE THIER SUPPORT FOR ANOTHER TEAM?
DECIDE WHO THE QUATERBACK IS GOING TO BE (PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
DECIDE WHO THE RECIEVER IS GOING TO BE (VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE)
AND LETS GO OUT AND WIN THIS GAME OF POLITICS AS A STRONG COHESIVE TEAM.
THANKS
SCORPI2000
Is there a punter in your game?
I hear you. I agree with you. But we past the point of intraparty squabbles long ago.
Unfortunately, the defensive team won't get off the field and allow the offense to score.
the entire state of the nation, in fact, can be attributed to the white, working class, swing-voting women democrats who fell for the GOP's "compassionate conservatism" slogan and believed that g.w. bush (of all the wicked despots) was a good, principled, good ole christian white boy from texas.
considering the fact that hillary clinton is a lieberman-esque, neo-con mole, this particular voting block, are awfully easily duped.
So since she does not fit the democratic mold, obviously because she has a spine, you will forgive and understand if she runs as the independent candidate? I'm over the republicans and the democrats, so I think it's time to seriously consider a third party candidate. One that runs on liberal platform like healthcare and abortion, but also takes national security seriously.
That is obviously a big part of Obama's platform. And who would your independent candidate be?
The democratic party is changing at the unprecedented pace in the recent months, perhaps it is Obama's remarkable character that helped to propel forward this undeniable moment of truth, in which everyone has a chance if not even forced to reassess their core values and convictions. And out of the disturbing fire of this political selection, which will most certainly cost the democratic party some of it's members, a new unified and re-energized democratic phoenix will arise, with the unshakable common ideological base, which is exactly what we will need to assure us the new victories for a century ahead!
No more republican nightmare!
Vote Dem 08!
Dream on dream away!
Just how do you propose to fund this so called independent candidacy? Hillary is $31 million in debt now:
http://lat
News flash: Hillary HAS NO MONEY! Can you get a clue? Vendors (Media ad buys, banner suppliers, venues, etc.) will not continue to give her credit to allow her to continue this mismanaged joke. In April, she took in $21 million, and spent $29 million!
You can't just petulantly stamp your feet, hold your breath until you turn blue, and hope someone lets you have your way.
The real world doesn't work that way.
The sad thing is, if Hillary would have run a marginally competent and decent campaign, she would have won going away. And I would have supported her enthusiastically.
Her behavior over the next two weeks will determine if I will ever support a Clinton again.
Re-spinning spin and lashing out at female Hillary supporters because they're not voting your way is silly. It's not reasonable to accuse those who don't believe in speculative mathematics of being somehow stupid or dishonest. Numbers are what they are. When the required number is reached, we will have a nominee. That is real math. Hopeful math does not work. Imaginary math doesn't work. It's not possible to change the fundamental idea of 2 + 2 = 4. Just control the hyperventilating and wait for the number.
It's the job of superdelegates to use their wisdom to decide which candidate will win in November, especially when the race is so close that the primary doesn't decide it. Whether or not you agree with that concept is immaterial. It is a fact.
The rules of the DNC specifically state that Michigan and Florida could propose a plan to re-run primaries or caucuses to resolve their delegate problem. The candidates had veto power. Obama exercised his. The rules also state that the credentials committee can resolve the problem either before or at the time of the convention. That is factual and it serves no purpose for you to stomp your feet and complain about rule-breaking. The only person to break a rule was Obama who ran a TV ad in Florida in violation of the ban on campaigning. These are facts.
Labeling as selfish women who still support Hillary is kind of despicable. Not a fact - just my opinion.
Presto says: "When the required number is reached, we will have a nominee. "
As the author of the blog pointed out, most campaigns end before math definitively proves it. Why should have Edwards dropped out so early on in the race? He could have even *possibly* won the nomination with all kinds of future contingencies. Maybe so but the damage to the party would have been *certain*. Hillary has shown and her rhetoric still suggests that she has no particular interest in the ultimate victory of a Democratic ticket. She wants to drag this out to the convention. Every minute she stays in the race, makes it more difficult, not any easier, for the party to heal and focus on the upcoming general election.
I agree.
Edwards did not have a significant enough percentage of the votes to keep going. Had he been in Hillary's position, with half of the votes cast to date, you can be sure he would still be in it. That is a specious argument.
This has been an interesting and exciting primary. New Democrats are popping up like dandelions. That's a good thing. Let the process work.
" "Both national cable networks told us it would be impossible for us to run advertising nationally that excluded only Florida. For that reason we consulted with the South Carolina Democratic Party Chair, Carol Fowler, who told us unequivocally she did not consider this to be in violation of pledge made to the early states," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. "
I don't think the Obama campaign "vetoed" any revote. Florida wasn't willing to pay for theirs. Michigan COULDN'T. The DNC wouldn't. And I, I guess like Obama, think it would've been a bad idea had either candidate paid for it. Even if they equally split the costs.
$12 Million dollars was offered by private donors to revote in MI, but who do you think opposed it?
It is perfectly possible to run state-by-state ads. Obviously, others did. Quoting the Obama campaign to bolster an Obama argument is biased.
Obama agreed to go for a Michigan re-vote when asked about it February. Plans then went forth but he rejected the firehouse primary proposed by Governor Jennifer Granholm. He could probably have won the re-vote but didn't want to take a chance.
Got it!
You understand the math, the presciptive rights of Clinton, the wisdom 'job' that superdelegates could use.
But what about your wisdom, the wisdom of your candidate and the wisdom of her supporters?
This is laughable "That is factual and it serves no purpose for you to stomp your feet and complain about rule-breaking. "
That's where "shoe" and "other foot" come together in a little homily.
Not sure where everybody else's wisdom enters the picture. That is the whole point. The superdelegates protect us from ourselves. Shoes, feet and homilies are even less pertinent.
Thank you so much for this article. As a middle-aged white woman (born and raised in Appalachia, no less, although I live elsewhere now), I insist that Hillary and her minions stop speaking "on my behalf".
Got it. I'll speak on my behalf, no voices no vote for Senator O. FL and MI revote.
I thought both states voted against a re-vote.
March 11, 2008 - The Buzz Florida Politics
FL delegation opposes re-vote
After meeting tonight for two hours with Sen. Bill Nelson, the Democrats in Florida's Congressional delegation - Obama and Clinton supporters alike - decided to oppose not only a vote-by-mail Democratic primary but any re-vote at all.
"We are committed to working with the DNC, the FL state Democratic party, our Democratic leaders in FL and our two candidates to reach an expedited solution that ensures our 210 delegates are seated. Our House delegation is opposed to a mail-in campaign or any re-do of any kind."
---Wes Allison
AND as for Michigan that bill died in the senate. Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember watching the news were both FL & MI decided on NO re-vote.
I'm so happy for you. That you got out of Appalachia that is. I hope you don't know anyone in the West Virginian voter interviews I saw. "I think we've had enough Husseins." Is it really that scary?
You know, I too am a middle-aged (if we stretch that a little) white woman (though not from Appalachia). And I too insist that Hillary and her minions stop speaking "on my behalf."
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! Well said!
Thank you for an honest, logical post. As women we are sometimes accused of being irrational and the way Hilary has been running around trying to win at alll cost is very disappointing to me. Most people would recognize that they are behind and bow out accordingly.
And as women how can we honestly explain all this to our children. We tell our children to play fair and play by the rules. We would never encourage our children to change the rules of the game or move the finish line because it would be wrong. What Hilary is doing is just plain wrong.
In order to honestly explain anything to your children, you have an obligation to get your facts straight. Clinton did not break any rules. No rules are being changed. The DNC rules are extremely complex so it is incumbent on you to either learn them or stop mis-characterizing them. They are posted on line. Hundreds of pages worth.
Ok. So she wasn't exactly "breaking the rules" when she started chanting 2209 about a week or so ago. But at the very least, it was terrible disingenuous (sp?).
It's not incumbent on you to read her paragraph correctly, but it would serve you well.
4real does not refer to DNC rules, but to something more akin to fairplay. She/he says "We would never encourage our children to change the rules of the game or move the finish line because it would be wrong."
The rules that Clinton bought into were very simple and not written in a rulebook. These rules - that all candidates bought into - were that the Florida and Michigan primary vote count would not be tallied if those Primaries took place at a time that was in contravention of Demcratic Party's decision.
That's how I read 4real's comment.
You are very prescriptive and hectoring. This is typically the path of those who won't deal with the ethical problems underlying their positions in my experience.
I can read a hell of a lot of common sense and wisdom into 4real's comment. All I can read into yours is a sort of pre-graduate use of syllogism and an overconfidence in your intellect.
I don't see any wisdom there.
You claim Obama broke the rules by running a national ad that an official in SC claims was not a violation, according to sky2blue. How do I know you are not the ne being dishonest? Isn't it possible you have misrepresented the rules?
Previously the Clinton campaign said that FLA and MI delegates would not count and then later, when they saw they needed those delegates, they moved the agreed-upon, well-understood goalposts from 2025 to over 2200. Do we want a leader who is willing to change the rules midgame and obviously renege on her word?
You might want to read those rules yourself. Hillary Clinton is asking that the rules be broken for her. She signed a agreement which they have on tape. Now because she has been beaten fairly she want's to change the rules and has used race to rally white women to her side. Both parties use delegates as the barometer of winning and Mr. Obama has the majority of pledged delegates given by the voters. Hillary Clinton now wants that rule changed...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
