You seem quite often to assume that white people who vote for Clinton are racists. I suppose this looks to be common sense--you just put two and two together and of course they must be racists, why else would they vote for her?--but this "logic" is completely unverified in any scientific way. Let's see a few well-designed research projects before drawing this conclusion.
For myself I can't imagine voting for McBush under any circumstances, but I can think of reasons why people might be scared of Obama's youth and inexperience and rhetorical performances--I'm a little scared myself--and decide to opt for the old guy without thinking too much about what that will mean for women and the poor.
As for why Clinton is losing: Her loss has a lot to do with Obama's attractiveness and skill as a candidate, not to mention his amazingly astute campaign. Alas for Hil, her opponent is a post-modern political phenom. He has outmatched her, but it takes two to have a winner and a loser--not just one candidate making mistakes all on her own.
"McCain B4 Obama"?
It's good to see Erica Jong, a passionate Clinton supporter, do the right thing and speak out for a united Democratic Party in November. And yet one of her first commenter promptly attacked her with a "Democrats should vote Republican" screed that pushes a new website called "McCainb4Obama."
Fine. This debate should be held, and soon. With 2/3rds of Clinton voters in Kentucky claiming they won't vote for Obama and bitter Clintonite bloggers egging them on, it's time to start talking about the implications of staying home - or voting for McCain - in November.
If you're a woman considering a McCain vote or an abstention, why not just call "McCainb4Obama" by a more accurate name -"Feminists Against Women"? Consider what a McCain victory would mean for women:
- More back-alley abortions, once he's done picking right-wing ideologues as judges.
- More dead Iraqi women and girls, and probably quite a few in Iran too.
- More dead American women, to join the one hundred female heroes who have already given their lives in Iraqi combat.
- Gutting of efforts by the court system and the Justice Department to ensure equality in the workplace.
Sound good? Then by all means, support "Feminists Against Women" - I mean, "McCain b4 Obama."
Or maybe that group should just be called "Whites Against Blacks." Erica Jong is right: Clinton and Obama aren't far apart on policy, at least domestically. So why else would a Clinton supporter choose McCain over Obama? One quarter of Clinton voters in Kentucky acknowledged race as a factor in their vote, slightly up from West Virginia's results.
Not everyone agrees, of course. Commenter "AJKNYNJ" writes this on Ms. Jong's post:
"What you seem to want to not understand is that this is more than a simple 'personal bias' for many people. This is about large and growing numbers of people who do not believe that Obama is the change he professes to represent, about concerns for our national security under an Obama administration, about Obama's lesser health care plan, his extreme inexperience in the world political arena, and much more. We honestly believe that Obama would not be good for our country. This movement is large and growing. ."
This is the closest attempt I've seen yet to articulating McCain-over-Obama as anything except pique, resentment, and frustration. It's not exactly convincing on that score, but let's look at the arguments:
- "What you seem to want not to understand ..."
That's just a personal jab at Ms. Jong for her apostasy.
- "... they do not believe that Obama is the change he professes to represent":
The one thing that's certain is that Obama has changed the electoral landscape and energized a new generation. That's pretty exciting. But is he, personally, an embodiment of "change?" That's impossible to know at this point. The real question is: Would he be a better President than McCain?
- "... national security under an Obama administration":
Hey - if you think that eight years of GOP national security has made us safer, McCain's your guy. If you think we can safely occupy Iraq for decades to come, and that that will make us safer, McCain's your guy. If you think a President who can't tell Sunni from Shi'ite can protect us from terrorists, McCain's your guy. Otherwise, you may want to reconsider.
- "... Obama's lesser health plan":
As someone with 25 years' experience in the health field, I believe Obama's plan and Clinton's are similar, and that their only difference (the lack of a mandate) is a plus for Obama's. Some other experts disagree on that last point - but almost all of us agree that McCain's plan would lead to more uninsured Americans, less coverage for those who have insurance, and great benefits for large corporations. But, again - if that sounds right to you, McCain's your guy.
____________________
Of course, this may all just be idle threat. The commenter adds: "If the Democrats are to unite, they've got a much better chance if they choose to unite behind Clinton." Once the inevitable has taken place, let's hope that support for these groups will fade away as people realize the implications behind supporting them.
Hillary Clinton will eventually come out and express her support for Barack Obama, and she'll mean it sincerely. She's energized an enormous base of support, and she will use it to support the Democratic Party in November. As for Erica Jong - I've criticized her in the past, but she and other Clinton supporters do a great service to their country by supporting their party and its candidate. They do a service to women across the world, too.
Join them. Join all of us. It's been a tough race, but it's not too late to fight the good fight together.
RJ Eskow blogs:
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
Actually, it's very scientific. When 20%-25% voters say that race played a big part in their vote, and the vast majority of them voted for a white candidate over a black one, it'd be unscientific to conclude that race WASN'T a factor for them. We can't look at this situation with blinders, much as many Clinton supporters might like to.
And I have never "assumed that white people who vote for Clinton are racists." If you're going to make an assertion like that, you ought to find a quote of two to back it up. I study the poll results and make appropriate conclusions. I list several other reasons to vote for Clinton in this post alone - I don't like the reasons, but I list them.
And there are good arguments for Clinton's candidacy, too - but she made the tactical error of burying the one or two good arguments she has (namely, PA and OH) under a mountain of bad ones. When she made the "white Americans" comment last week, her last chance to convince the superdelegates died.
Nor have I discounted Obama's considerable skills.
Oh! I just noticed it's you! Well, I let these comments stand anyway.
No, you can't assume that any particular percentage is "scientific," even though common sense may suggest that. How were the voters sampled? Under what conditions? How was the sample analyzed?
I would want to know a lot more about the methods used before concluding that the results are "scientific." In the meantime, I will maintain a position of organized skepticism.
You people act as if Roe is all you got.
Hold on.
Wait a minute.
Roe is all you got to hang over the heads of women.
The whole Roe argument is wearing rather thin.
Why support a party that can't offer women anything more than Roe?
Both major parties suck on women's issues. One is no better than the other.
Family leave act?
Universal healthcare?
Pre-K education?
Equal pay?
Have you been paying attention? The Dems may not be all liberal and progressive women hope for, much like many blacks think it could be much, much better. But the Republicans could care less about women's issues besides making sure they have those babies.
Universal healthcare is oftf the table. Obama's plan does cover everyone.
Pre-K education is optional.
Equal pay......still waiting.
The Republicans are honest about what they stand for. In this election the Democratic Party did not stand with women when it counted the most and it didn't cost money or legislation to take a stand against sexism.
Obama's plan covers everybody except the people who don't want it.
Did you really buy into Clinton's whole thing about Obama leaving out 15mill people, "Will you be one?" No, you will not be one if you want coverage.
Stand with women? If that's your main concern, you should vote for Cynthia McKinney who'll probably be the Green Party's candidate. Not only is she not a Republican, she's a woman.
Stand with women? Did you miss the racism in the campaign and the constant racism in the media period?
I still want to know something. All these Democrats who say they'll refuse to vote for Obama and vote McCain ... who do they think they're hurting?
In 1980 there were REAGAN DEMOCRATS.
In 2008 there are COATHANGER DEMOCRATS.
COATHANGER DEMOCRATS: Disgruntled Hillary supporters who would prefer to have their female friends and family go back to the good old days of coathanger abortions - which will happen after a McCain stuffed Supreme Court repeals Roe V Wade.
If McCain prevails against Barack, COATHANGER DEMOCRATS will also be able to rejoice in all the extra body bags we're going to need for our troops in Iraq.
COATHANGER DEMOCRATS will also be able to enjoy the sight of 40 million people without health care living a wretched life, losing their life savings, and/or declaring bankruptcy when serious illness strikes them or their families.
Here's my thought: let them do whatever they want to do. We're not responsible for their insanity - and Barack will win without them.
Your list of reasons not to select McCain are lame. These are red herring arguments, that undermine seeing the real threat of McCain. McCain will trample womens and men basic rights across the board.
If these women do in fact vote for McCain over Obama, not only will it be a huge setback for feminism, it will also damage race relations. African Americans will look at white women as the ones who prevented an African American from becoming President. And while Hillary is probably hoping for a McCain win so she can run again in 2012, Obama supporters will blame her for Obama's loss. They will assume that Hillary Clinton encouraged women to vote for McCain and when 2012 arrives and she's running for President again, don't expect these people to rally behind her. This will create an opening for some other Democrat to emerge as the frontrunner, perhaps even another woman. The message will be "Vote for me cause I'm not Hillary."
Well if HRC and her old-school feminist supporters insist upon using good old fashioned jingoism to poison the well and put McCain in charge, I know one group who will be deeply ambivalent: the Naderites who are currently wearing the scapegoat horns.
"If the Democrats are to unite, they've got a much better chance if they choose to unite behind Clinton."
...and us Obama supporters feel the exact opposite. Can't this commenter who made that assertion understand that? I could easily make that same arguement for Obama. "If the Democrats are to unite, they've got a much better chance if they choose to unite behind Obama." Who's to say? We have to let the process play out and let our voices speak.
Because after all, there can NOT be a President McCain...we would be traveling faster in our downward spiral.
(Pt. 1) This should be the time for healing of Democratic Party factions. As an Obama supporter - and a feminist - I am trying to understand the vitriol directed at the Obama campaign. I have a sense that to some it is the frustration that just when a woman is finally within reach of the Presidency - less than 90 years after a time when women were not even legally allowed to vote - her campaign is failing and she has to contemplate "second place" to a younger, relatively less experienced man. To some for whom this is most painful, there is a feeling that the world must feel and appreciate the power that women wield - and this woman in particular. But I don''t think anything else needs to be done to prove this point, as Ariana Huffington discussed in her recent blog. But this power must be used responsibly, to an end that lifts this country up. Don't forget that just as it is unwise to anger Clinton supporters, so to it is unwise to alienate Obama supporters.
A sense of entitlement may explain the vitriol. The vitriol would likely be directed at any candidate winning the nomination over Clinton since many of her supporters (and arguably Clinton herself) feel it's her turn, that it's her nomination, that she's entitled to it for one reason or another (but not, of course, because she's run the winning campaign). With Obama, however, the vitriol is probably magnified because his relative newness on the national scene even further fuels the "it's her turn; he needs to wait his turn" mindset. In part, this sense of entitlement may also explain the incredibly arrogant "inevitable candidate" message and strategy the campaign employed early on.
The 'vitriol' is involuntary.
Hillary has gone far beyond the Rove playbook
in hiring a perceptions manager, Mark Penn.
If you look online you'll find that perception
management is classified as a military weapon.
The Pentagon is prohibited by an act of
Congress to used perception management
against the American public yet Hillary is
not reluctant to use it against American
women.
Penn went even further to weld perception
management tp the toxic ideological feminist
metaphors of the 1970s: women are a class,
men suppress women as a class, etc.
I don't think this is reparable.
This would have been out long ago. Even if something comes out, it won't even compare to the BS of the Clinton's Thuggery Machine!
Please remember that this country has always had its fringe elements. I live in one of the five states that went for Wallace in 1968--the holdouts from the infamous Southern Strategy, still segregationist in attitude at that point in time.
Reasonable democrats will vote for the Democratic candidate--whoever he or she may be--because the alternative would be far worse. If most Dems fall into that category, the Dem will win. No candidate is without his/her flaws. It is imperative that Democratic campaign strategy successfully illuminates MaCain's obvious unsuitability for office.
After watching the Neocons flaunt every law and policy where it would benefit them for eight years, I'm still not ready to predict a Democratic victory. However, I think that this election is very winnable for the Democrats.
Cheers!
I am a Clinton supporter who will vote for Obama in the fall.
The Dem blogosphere should leave off flogging Clinton and start on McCain. It's time. It is YOUR responsibility to change your target now and get busy bombarding the real adversary. Otherwise you are just wasting time and breath on poor ol' Hil, who is a dead duck when it comes to 2008.
That site seems to have been set up by McCain supporters hoping to take advantage of the anger of Clinton supporters at losing the nomination. From their site the motivation is "This is about character, this is about honesty, this is about patriotism, this is about the economy, this is about what we believe to be best for the country and for the world." Note there is not a lot there about feminism. It is actually pretty standard right wing talking points.
There is no hint before the sign up (which obviously I am not about to do) as to what constitutes his lack of honesty or character. And of course his approach to the economy is much closer to Clinton's than is McCain, as is his foreign policy (if Clinton's current statements about Iraq are to be believed).
And I hope that Clinton does not really question Obama's patriotism. So the whole list would seem to be items on which an actual Clinton supporter would favor Obama over McCain.
Just sent this message to Mr. Kanciper...
McCainB4Obama?
You have got to be kidding me. This, right here, is exactly why I prefer Obama over Hillary. Dirty, ugly, nasty tactics that only sink this county deeper into the mess that it's in. I'm so glad she's not winning, I really don't want to see what you guys would do during the general election if she were nominated. This sort of politics has got to end for the good of American and the world. Go vote for McCain you dirty little traitor. We don't need your sorry ass to win this anyway, we've got enough cross over republicans who see McCain for what he is. Too bad you're too blinded by your own racism to see it as well.
Your post got me thinking Lon, maybe this site actually was put up by McCain supporters, but unfortunatly, my search didn't turn up much. Obviously this information can be spoofed, but I've found no evidence of that.
This information can be found by anyone with a browser, so I don't think it will be a problem to post it here...
> whois mccainb4obama.com
Registrant Contact:
Adam Kanciper adam@kanciper.net
Adam Kanciper
*** Address Deleted *** (I don't play that dirty, unlike some in the party)
Google search of Adam Kanciper returns this link
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=name&lname=Kanciper&fname=Adam
Aparrently the owner of this site has donated $250 to Hillary in this cycle and to noone else.
It would seem that this is what it claims to be. A shame that HRCs supporters are such sore losers. And before the race is even over at that.
I guess we could have expected more dirty, underhanded tactics in the GE if she'd have been nominated. Just one more reason why I'd go with the Obama camp over the Hillary camp. It's just this kind of behavior and politics I'd like to see an end of.
Let me pose the question a different way: If Hillary Clinton does not win the nomination, she remains a strong voice in the Senate. Which president will sign her legislation? With a President McCain, she will see every piece of good legislation vetoed. With a President Obama, she has every opportunity to leave a massive legacy of legislative progress. So, please, don't kill Hillary's chances to make legislative change by handing McCain the veto pen.
Very, very good point. May I use it?
Thanks, RJ. Once again, a voice of reason.
Thanks for the great article. Some hillary lovers and obama haters remind me of a terrorist group. They dont get their way so they threaten to destroy someone who hasnt done anything to them, unless they get want they want. Thats the philosophy that al qaeda, hamas and other terrorist groups live by..
Obama will soon be indicted, along with Blagojevich, for his role in the Rezko/Auchi/General Mediterannean/Syrian mafia criminal enterprise. Most of the charges will be 18 USC 1346 (mail fraud honest services) charges.
That's why Hillary is staying in the race: she knows that Obama--a small time hood--is going down soon. Wait til Rezko is convicted.
In fact, Evelyn Pringle has been laying out the case in unprecedented detail in her wonderful "Curtain Time for Barack Obama." She has been doing it for weeks at opednews.com. Here's a convenient link to the services, below.
The next installment will give you a good idea of where 18 USC 1346 figures in, as Obama dutifully plays his organized crime role in the legislature, by making sure that Rezko continues to have control over the State boards which hand out the contracts and provide the "pay" for the "play." Obama is quite the scum. The boards are the reason the U.S. Attorney calls his overall investigation, Operation Board Games.
How do Obama supporters feel--after reading about his criminal activities in excruciating detail in Pringle's articles--about supporting this front-and-center hood?
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0805/S00245.htm
And Hillary will be indicted in November for the Peter Paul case.
Seeings how the link you provided didn't establish anything of significance, despite what the author thinks, I feel pretty good. Thansk for asking troll.
jrysk
How do Clinton supporters feel about the upcoming Paul Vs Clinton fraud case?
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/paul-vs-clinton-fraud-case-let-dispositions-begin
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977335998
of course yet to be heard in the MSM.
You are a scary person. I felt great - happy because I'm supporting a wonderful candidate. Obviously you are feeling- angry, vindictive, delusional?
Glad to know that New Zealanders are keeping such close tabs on Obama's shenanigans. Where would we be without them? :P
OMG... how do I, an Obama supporter feel today... lets see...exhilarated..excited... optimistic... enthused... should I go on ... as for how i feel about you jrysk... nervous... leery... apprehensive....
Great article by the way RJ...couldn't have said it better myself... I go between exasperation and disgust at some of these ladies who want to jump ship but you have thought it out and expressed yourself very eloquently.
I cannot believe that this is enough for some people to want to call for indictment. Where the hell have you been for 7 years? I swear to god, the idiot right will grasp at ANYTHING about the left while blindly ignoring their own NUMEROUS crimes. "Obama is quite the scum?" WHAT COUNTRY HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING IN FOR 7 YEARS? WAKE UP!
Loading comments…
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
When Katie Couric told Haaretz that "The glory days of TV news...
Posted May 21, 2008 | 01:24 PM (EST)