The Feminist Threat

Almost 40 percent of Senator Hillary Clinton's supporters either favor Senator John McCain or are undecided, according to the latest Associated Press-Yahoo News poll. Some media accounts have spun this as a glass-is-half-full scenario for Senator Barack Obama because more than half of Clinton's supporters intend to vote for him. Today's joint Clinton/Obama rally in Unity, New Hampshire is an effort to increase that number. But whatever the data mean for Obama, the cup is hardly running over for the feminist movement.

Undoubtedly, women account for a considerable chunk of that 40 percent. And, equally likely, most of these women must be, like Senator Clinton herself, committed advocates of a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion - one of the defining causes of the feminist movement in the past four decades. How can these same women be unsure of their vote in November or, worse yet, committed to John McCain, perhaps the most anti-choice candidate in history?

The answers are bleak for feminists. These women are either ignorant or angry.

So, let's start with the women who have not yet bothered to consider what a vote for McCain would mean for women's rights. A recent poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that half of women supporting Senator McCain in battleground states did not know his position on abortion. In fact, George Will estimated that three-quarters of the country do not know McCain is pro-life. The lack of knowledge is not because the facts are up for debate. Senator McCain has stated publicly and unequivocally his views on abortion: he told a group of supporters in South Carolina this year that "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned." And he has a long record of opposing abortion rights. He voted against allocating federal Medicaid funds for abortion even when the woman was the victim of rape or incest. He supported a complete ban on women in the military getting abortions at overseas military hospitals even when those women use their own money.

Senator McCain's lack of concern for the health of women goes further than his stance on abortion. He opposes requirements on health care plans to provide contraceptive coverage. He endorses an abstinence-only approach to sex education.

And lest there be any doubt how these views would translate to his judicial nominees, Senator McCain has made it crystal clear in a recent speech that he will support judges who share his views, including his anti-abortion stance. As with so many things, he intends to follow the path of President George W. Bush; he is on the record stating that he will select Justices in the mold of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, jurists who have already demonstrated an unwavering conservative voting record.

Senator Obama, in contrast, has pledged to make the preservation of "women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President." He voted against Justices Roberts and Alito and has made clear that he wants "people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through."

This is not merely a theoretical disagreement between candidates. We are one vote away from having a majority of the Court hostile to Roe v. Wade, and the next President will replace at least one Justice who supports abortion rights and probably more. But some of Hillary Clinton's supporters have not even bothered to engage in the 10-second Google search that would give them McCain's positions on these issues.

But what about the women who do know the facts? Some of the women in that 40 percent must know McCain's views on these issues and are not fooled by his campaign's efforts to appear friendly to women by prominently featuring the female former CEOs of Hewlett-Packard and eBay. Informed female supporters of Hillary Clinton should be lining up to volunteer for Barack Obama. That a sizeable portion of them are unsure what to do next isn't just bad news for Senator Obama. It's bad news for the women's movement.

A woman's right to choose and reproductive freedom have been central pillars of the women's movement. If these women no longer feel strongly about those issues, on what basis are they now voting?

Is there another cause or issue greater than this one for these feminists? Certainly one can think of many pressing concerns. But Senator Obama is aligned with Senator Clinton on almost every major policy issue - and Senator McCain is not.

The most likely answer to the question of why some of these women are supporting McCain or are undecided is a frightening one for the feminist movement. It seems that many of these women would cast their vote for McCain to demonstrate their fury at Hillary Clinton's failure to secure the Democratic nomination.

Cynthia Ruccia, the co-founder of a group of Ohio Clinton supporters angered by what they saw as sexism during the primary campaign, says she plans to vote for Senator McCain even though she favors abortion rights. "Sexism is neither Democratic nor Republican, and it needs to stop," she said.

But a protest vote for Senator McCain as a way of decrying sexism simply doesn't make sense. One of the hallmarks of the women's movement --until now - has been its focus on action and results, not self-destructive symbols or the cult of personality.

Another has been to challenge the stereotype that women are too emotional to be trusted in positions of power where important decisions are made.

If these women cast their ballots in ignorance or a fit of rage, the glass wouldn't just be half empty for feminists. It would be shattered - and that's not the glass feminists have been trying to break through all these years.

Comments

[Adnora]

The arguments offered by the die hards re; disliking Obama are not making any sense. I wonder how to reason with a person who is not talking actual issues, but rather venting resentment and anger.
The biting off the nose to spite the face thin is starting to get really old and really tired.

I do not see why they feel the DNC favored Obama in any of it's decisions. The DNC followed it's long established rules instead of changing them to suit HRC at the last minute. Inconvenient for her yes. Unfair, absolutely not. I wish someone could explain why they feel such anger about the primary process. I am stumped. And to keep threatening to back McCain in some suicidal display of "power"?? McCain is the sexist. Obama is not...but because Hillary screwed up, and needs to beg Obama supporters for 12 million dollars to pay her campaign debts, because the Obamas donated the maximum personally to help HRC bail out of her campaign debt, because Obama has acted as a total gentleman throughout the grueling primary process, Obama is the bad guy. Oh yes he happens to be pro choice and McCain opposes Roe V Wade, but never mind that somehow they must know that despite all eveidence to the contrary, secretly Mccain is a feminist!! and Obama is a sexist!!
Please take a good hard look at your thought processes.

[wwsword]

The feminists who won't vote for Obama are motivated neither by ignorance nor anger. They are clearly not ignorant. They know Obama is a sexist and they know Hillary was held back by rampant sexism. They are clearly angry and rightfully so. Feminists who are not angry over what happened have the explaining to do. No, feminists who will not vote for Obama do so as a protest. They're sending a signal to the Democratic Party that the party can no longer take the women's vote for granted. I am seriously considering joining the protest.

The primary was a sham. What is more, whether feminists vote for Obama or not, the chances of an Obama victory in November are slim to none. He is a losing proposition. The Democrats, for whatever reason, decided long ago to field not only a losing candidate for president but the worst possible candidate among the field of candidates representing Democratic Party interests. The man's a charlatan.

[blaqntelligence]

I am confused.
Last night I watched on CNN that 23% of hillary's supporers would not vote for Obama...
This piece states that 40% won't vote for him or are undecided...
Those numbers have been analyzed, dissected, and endlessly discussed...
My question?
What of those 77% and 60% that support Obama?
And why is such emphasis placed on the small number while the larger, and more significant percentages ignored?
My observation includes this piece as well.

[steve70638]

It is shocking to me that so many so called feminists are so angry with HRC's loss that they forget the reason they are feminist! You know, like embracing the values of feminism. Many of these people are, in fact, exhibiting the worst form of sexism, namely: "vote for the woman because she is a woman" and "it is our turn" thinking.

To these people, it is so inconceivable that Obama won, so inconceivable that ANYONE would vote for Obama over Clinton, so inconceivable the EVERYONE doesn't see it as clearly as they do that they are willing to upset the whole table because they didn't get their way. Clearly, their simply being "right" or "justified" is more important that the values that were supposed to be important to them being successful.

What can you say about people like this other than we hope they get over their disappointment and grow up. It isn't going to be "your turn" but it IS your turn for the values you hold dear to be advanced. Isn't that what this is all about?

[Jane]

This is a cogent piece--it appears that feminists, like most Americans, vote not on the issues, but in accordance with feelings of revenge and resentment against those who they feel have failed to respect them. It is a terrible shame that HIllary Clinton made these issues paramount in her campaign as a way to appeal to a certain segment of voters, and now that she has aroused them, they won't give their resentment up. The political is personal, indeed. A vote for McCain is suicidal for any woman. Look at Cindy McCain and the first wife. They are like spectral visions of what happens to women in the McCain orbit. CLinton could have been a good candidate. She could have run a well-organized campaign, and she could have voted against the Iraq war. If she had done those things, she might now be the nominee. But she didn't. Her supporters need to admit that she screwed up. She does, too.