Next entry: This ain't no party, this is empathy boot camp, ladies
Previous entry: Bamboo Review: Incredible Hulk
Via Feministing, Katie Halper has written a loyalty oath for former Clinton supporters who are signing on with McCain:
The McCain Loyalty Oath for Women
I _______________ pledge to transfer my support from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. I agree to do all I can do to get McCain the vote. In order to achieve this noble goal I promise to support McCain’s…
- fight to overturn Roe v. Wade and my right to choose.
- fight against equal pay for men and women.
- opposition to providing low-income and uninsured women and families with health care services ranging from breast and cervical cancer screening to birth control.
- opposition to sex education and support of abstinence-only education.
- opposition to insurance covering birth control.
- endorsement of women’s rights more “in theory” than in practice.
- pet name for his wife.
As a woman I promise to apply McCain’s principles to my own life and vow to…
- call myself and my female friends the C word.
- picket abortion clinics.
- not use contraceptives.
- drink bleach so I don’t catch HIV and drink Mountain Dew so I don’t get pregnant.
- give back part of my salary to male coworkers.
- not vote, but pursue education and encourage my father/husband/brother male friends to vote for McCain.
Once McCain is elected, I will continue to support him and I will not complain about my losing my right to choose, and other reproductive freedoms. And I will continue to refrain from pursuing equality for women.
Signature ____________
At Feministing, this has upset a few people.
I’m a bit angry and disappointed in this post and what it assumes about Clinton supporters and their possible choice to vote for McCain. (M. Marie)
Way to completely miss the point of Clinton supporters voting for McCain. (Wildberry)
Surprisingly*, neither commenter enlightens as to what we should assume. Kate Harding puts it less succinctly:
Listen up, pundits, party, and bullying bloggers: It is not women’s job to “come home” to the party. It is the party’s job to make us fucking feel welcome in our own “home.” It is Obama’s job to earn our votes. Taking us for granted is shitty, and threatening us with the loss of our bodily autonomy is about a zillion times shittier. STOP IT. You are not helping. You are driving voters away.
To some extent, I agree. I say “to some extent” because I long ago reconciled myself to never casting a vote that’s not a compromise vote; then again, I’m a privileged white male with no worries about where my next meal will come from. My compromises start a hell of a lot farther down the ladder of personal impact than many, including women.
So, if you are supporting McKinney, or staying home in November, this post is not about you. I certainly hope you’ll reconsider between now and November, and I reserve the right to disagree with you on Obama’s experience and pro-woman voting record, but I promise, the post is not about you. You don’t have to vote for Obama if you don’t want to, and that’s not “permission”, it’s a statement of fact.
This post is aimed at McCain voters. I can hear the commenters now: “I really don’t think anyone will actually support McCain; McKinney or none of the above but not McCain.” Well, in some states nineteen percent of Clinton supporters claimed they would vote McCain (and 20% of Obama supporters, so there’s no claims of superiority here.) The demographic is out there. And this post is written about them.
The argument for voting for McKinney, McCain, or none is the same as it was for Nader: “My vote is my own; I’ll cast it how I want; my vote is X’s to win, not to lose; I refuse to cast it as a compromise.” Fine. Great. For McKinney and None voters, that argument holds some water. McKinney would be a fantastic president. And no one can or should force you to participate in an election. But this same principle, McCain voters, gives you no further refuge.
One of Kate Harding’s complaints was the use of Roe v. Wade as a cudgel, a “vote for our guy or you’ll lose choice!” weapon to gloss over other misogynist aspects of the Democratic party. Well, I’m not here to do that. I’m here to tell you that, under the “my vote is my own” principle, a vote for McCain is not a vote against the Democratic organization. A vote for McCain is a vote for McCain. If you vote for McCain, there’s no need to use Roe v. Wade as a cudgel, because you’ve just cast a vote to support misogynist policies across the board. Losing Roe v. Wade shouldn’t scare you any more than the silver standard should have scared someone who voted for William Jennings Bryan: It’s your political position. It can’t not be, because you had free choice with your vote.
See, that’s the problem with our two-party system: I started out the post by stating that every vote I’ve cast has been a compromise, then argued that the voter is responsible for every little stance a candidate takes. And yeah, that’s a trap. But it’s a trap that everyone knows about. That’s why the Green party exists. That’s why abstention exists. McKinney is arguably better on womens’ issues than Obama is; saying that both are better than McCain is not a political opinion, it’s a statement of fact**. McCain wants to enact misogynist policies. He’s told us as much. He wants your vote to help him do it. If you answer the call, you’re doing it with your eyes open.
I hereby pledge that if McCain wins (three-minute vomit break) if McCain wins, I will never express a negative statement about a McKinney or abstention voter. That’s a slight deviation from my previous position about Nader, but in the interests of not engaging in the ignoring of womens’ concerns about misogyny, I’m absolutely going to live up to it. But McCain voters will be McCain voters, no matter who they supported in the primaries. People who support candidates with misogynist platforms (and war-mongering, and pro-oligarchy, and anti-middle and lower class, etc. etc.) deserve to be taken at their votes.
Update: I should have clarified in the post that Kate Harding has expressed her plans to vote for Obama in November. Also, my pledge does not apply to pre-election discussions of voting plans. For example, I reserve the right to point out that Rep. McKinney has some very positive things to say about Senator Obama.
Coming from Barack Obama, the word “change” did not appear as just another empty campaign slogan.It galvanized millions of people—mostly young people—to register to vote and to get active in the political system. The U.S. political system needs the energy and vision of all its citizens participating in the political process. Citizen participation is always the answer.
Sen. Obama called for healing the wounds inflicted on working people and the poor in our country after eight years of a corrupt and criminal Bush-Cheney Administration. Just as in November 2006, people full of an expectation for change, including those the system has purposefully left out and left behind, flocked to the polls to vote for Sen. Obama. Across a broad swath of the people of this country, and from those who are impacted by U.S. foreign policy, there is a real expectation, a real desire, for change...I encourage the Democratic Party and its new presumptive nominee, Sen. Obama, to embrace these important suggestions for policy initiatives.
------------------------------------------------------------
* Not surprisingly.
** Unless you define “good on womens’ issues” as being anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-equal pay, pro-STD.
Posted by
Auguste on 12:07 PM •
(25)
Trackbacks •
Permalink
Way to completely miss the point of Clinton supporters voting for McCain.
Have these people ever actually voted or participated in any way in the American political process before?
Because last time I went to the polls, I don’t recall there being an essay section of the ballot where I got to explain exactly what the “point” of my electoral choices was. A vote for Candidate X is simply a vote for Candidate X, and that’s all you get.
I also hope that the newly minted Hillarepublicans understand that even if sexist policies aren’t the actual reason you chose to vote for McCain, said policy will still apply to you. I voted for Hillary Clinton when she ran for senate, but her hawkish stance on defense wasn’t “the point” of that vote—I still have to live in a universe where we went to war with Iraq.
Sometimes I feel like all this voting-oriented reality TV has really confused the conceptual underpinnings of what it means to participate in the democratic process. You’re not picking the best no-talent popstar or has-been celebrity ballroom dancer. YOU’RE ELECTING THE PEOPLE WHO WILL SET POLICY THAT ACTUALLY AFFECTS YOUR LIFE.
When McCain wins (by a nose, with the help of little election fraud here and there), we’ll be so mired in misery and disaster we won’t even have time to call the Democrats, progressives, and feminists who voted for him the damn fools that they are.
We probably won’t even have the freedom of speech to say it.
You nailed it on how a vote for McKinney is not the same as a vote for McCain--the only thing they have in common is the “Mc” in the beginning of their names. In Harding’s defense, she does say in the very first line of that post that she’s voting for Obama, but as I pointed out in the comments over there, she’s also aiming her fire in the wrong direction, as are most people who’ve gone after the Democrats and Obama during this primary season. It’s the media that’s been the problem, to a much larger degree than either the party as a whole or Obama’s campaign, when it comes to sexism.
The people who are making noises about voting for someone other than Obama are a very small contingent, and the ones switching to McCain are a fraction of that contingent, and if this election is so close that they can sway the outcome, we’ve got bigger problems to deal with, so to me, they’re irrelevant, even if their argument had some merit. I’m with you on the notion that no McKinney voter will get a bad comment from me--Obama’s campaign does need to earn their votes if he wants to count on them, and I suspect he’ll continue to reach out to them. Some of these people are unreachable, mind you--they’re convinced he’s as sexist as McCain and there’s no convincing them otherwise. But he’ll get most of them, and the ones who’ve switched to McCain will get to glory in their “statement,” for all that’s worth.
I hereby pledge that if McCain wins (three-minute vomit break) if McCain wins, I will never express a negative statement about a McKinney or abstention voter.
Well that’s good, I guess. Because I sure as fuck won’t.
Voting is not a form of personal fucking expression. It’s not about validating your personal beliefs by casting a ballot for a candidate who makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. It’s not about feeling “welcome” in a party or a movement. It’s an act of instrumental rationality. It’s always a compromise, it’s always going to be a compromise. Voting to ensure the least bad outcome is fundamental to how democracy works. People who don’t understand this need to grow the fuck up.
A vote for McCain is (literally) twice as bad as staying home, but they are both terrible choices and those who make them are wholly contemptible. I don’t mind if you cut off your nose to spite your face, but elections have terrible real-world consequences and people who assist McCain’s candidacy in any way have blood on their hands.
just so everybody know, McCain blog people are pretty smooth. Very viral. Some of them have serious sockpuppettry skill and they have money to burn.
They apply a lot of standard google and commenting trick. (google link farm)
look at the blogroll at this spamblog. This is classic web job.
http://www.justsaynodeal.com/index.html
this is btw, is their biggest blog. watch and read them. track their behavior. (I can’t decide the connection with the McCain yet. but they are definitely in the game.)
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/
Altho the way they say it differently, but the talking point is fairly static. (haven’t compiled them yet)
The Clinton/McCain crossover demographic is out there, but do you honestly think they’re reading here? I would imagine that the majority of them are centrists who could easily vote for a Republican in the first place. Calling them bad progressives/feminists won’t work on people who don’t actually identify as progressives/feminists. Perhaps a better way to reach those voters would be pointing out how far right of center McCain is.
DJA: Not everyone lodging a protest vote is doing it for “warm fuzzies”: there are those who feel that the short-term pain of getting a Republican elected is worth it if it can shock the Democrats out of taking their base for granted and effect a long-term move to the left. I don’t know that I buy that argument, but it is a rational one, not just a hysterical snit-fit. I’m just glad I don’t live in a swing state so I don’t have to make these calculations.
just so everybody know, McCain blog people are pretty smooth. Very viral. Some of them have serious sockpuppettry skill and they have money to burn.
They apply a lot of standard google and commenting trick. (google link farm)
Aaaah, so squashed is on the payroll of the McCain campaign. ‘Splains a lot.
For what it’s worth, this post inspired me to add my voice to the others who are saying the same thing. It’s really this simple--one cannot be a feminist and vote for McCain. A feminist can vote third party, can write in Clinton or some other advocate for womens’ right’s name, or can decide to stay home and still be a feminist, but you can’t vote for a misogynist and a misogynist’s party and still legitimately claim the mantle of feminist.
there are those who feel that the short-term pain of getting a Republican elected is worth it if it can shock the Democrats out of taking their base for granted and effect a long-term move to the left.
Because that worked so well in 2000… and every single other time before that…
I got your short-term pain right here.
no oppo, I click and read those site. Tracking and reading who is who. Plus I didn’t know I am “smooth”. You must have confused me with somebody else since I generally do direct and rather brute logic. I don’t do sweet talk.
does this blog list read like organic growth to you? all of them is new and very recent.
gopumaparty.com
hillarysupporters.com
writeinpartyusa.org
clintons4mccain.com
hillarygrassrootscampaign.com
riverdaughter
hillaryclintonforum.net
I tell you what. if the confluence and crew later end up revealed to be in McCain campaign strategy.
Will you eat your crow? (hey, making snarky comment is easy. how about something more?)
note:
They ALL done by same group of people.
same writing style
same core design theme
same talking point.
track the date, track the evolution of comment and opinion inside those blogs.
THEY ARE NOT organic. (at least nowhere near how it usually evolve inside blogs)
trace them out in google cache and technorati. Do you want me to start compiling meta info and registration bill to trace the origin? That would be hilarious if they are all the same.
Maybe some of the Hillary supporters who are now supporting McCain are more comfortable with his message. It seems like Hillary spent a good part of the last eight years trying to appeal to “security moms”. Her vote for the war, her vote in favor of Kyl-Lieberman and her threat to obliterate Iran all seem calculated to appeal to the frightened people who see sabre rattling as a source of strength. These votes and speeches may also be what she really thinks. If you agree that the war was a good idea and that we should obliterate Iran, you probably like McCain better than Obama.
Plus reproductive rights once you get in the land of soccer moms are a little different, at least I have a feeling that most soccer moms may like other peoples children having access to birth controll what they want for their own children may be different, so I doubt McCain anti-choice views really effect them that much.
In the end many of Hillarys supporters may be far more afraid of terrorist attacks and think the only way to avoid these attacks is four more years of Bush, at least in four more years of Bushs’ foriegn policy. McCain is closer to what they want than Obama.
The next page of this is missing- where it says: “I will happily support 100 more years of war in Iraq and keep my mouth utterly shut when we start to “bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran”.
I doubt McCain anti-choice views really effect them that much.
I think this is pretty much it, actually. The folks who are willing to go over to McCain for “feminist” reasons fall into at least one of two camps. The post-menopausal and the upper-middle-class. Both groups know that whatever disastrous reproductive rights policy McCain set in motion won’t affect them. Members of those groups who are willing to help elect McCain cannot see past their own lucky circumstances.
“threatening us with the loss of our bodily autonomy”
The thing about this is that it does not describe the situation at all. If I say “if large numbers of women refuse to vote for Obama and he loses we will all lose our right to choose” I am not “threatening” anything. I am describing something that will happen. In order for it to be a threat I would have to have some control over the outcome.
If I tell you “get down in your storm cellar or you might be swept up in the approaching tornado” i am not THREATENING you with a tornado. The tornado is a fact and I am telling you that your course of action, given the knowledge of said approaching tornado, may decide whether or not your life is about to get much more difficult.
The choice situation is actually a lot more serious because we are all in it together. At least if I can’t talk some sense into you during a tornado, I can give up and take shelter without you. But if a bunch of former Hillary voters really follow through with it and get McCain elected then that has a very real effect on my life.
I have a lot of fertile years ahead of me (I’m 23) and the prospect of losing heproductive rights makes me deeply afraid. If you vote for McCain (or even don’t vote fpr Obama when you are pro-choice) you are hurting me and a lot of women like me. I would love to threaten you if I had anything to threaten you with, but all I have is pointing out the facts and begging.
All we have between us and some pretty dire straits is a Democrat in the whitehouse in ‘08.
So, c’mon, PLEASE?
Show me a self-professed feminist who votes for McCain, and I will show you a complete, utter, spiteful fool.
Calling them bad progressives/feminists won’t work on people who don’t actually identify as progressives/feminists. Perhaps a better way to reach those voters would be pointing out how far right of center McCain is.
Doesn’t the list of McCain’s positions and statements in the post just do that? If not, what was lacking there?
Sycorax:
Not everyone lodging a protest vote is doing it for “warm fuzzies”: there are those who feel that the short-term pain of getting a Republican elected is worth it if it can shock the Democrats out of taking their base for granted and effect a long-term move to the left. I don’t know that I buy that argument, but it is a rational one, not just a hysterical snit-fit.
No. People who think that way are acting out of narcissism and myopia, not progressivism. I wouldn’t trust anyone who would rather see four more years (at least) of our slow descent into fascism than a Democratic president who so offensively only represents most of their socio-political views to mow my fucking lawn, much less to elect my president.
Does anyone actually think that, had HRC managed to win the nomination, these same people would be saying anything other than ‘you lost, too bad, now fall in line unless you want more [pick a horrible GOP policy]?’ There was already a lot of that going on during the Inevitable phase, the Superdelegates Will Save Us period, and any time it was mentioned that developing the not-yet-loyal youth vote would be in the best long-term interests of the party. I also have to say that I’m a bit… not embarrassed exactly, but certainly irritated by the constant invocation of Clinton supporters’ post-primary emotional needs. What are we supposed to do, supply grief counselors? Is it honestly good for feminism for those who publicly claim it to be both so openly devastated and bitter?- it’s politics, and those who want to stay involved need to learn either to deal with the bumps and bruises or to bow out gracefully.
Full disclosure, as an Obama supporter: I was not going to vote for HRC if she had been the nominee either, solely as an expression of disapproval of the party’s direction & methods, although I wouldn’t have voted for McCain. But that’s the luxury of living in a solid-red (or blue, for that matter) state in which one’s general-election vote is basically irrelevant. And I’d like to think that my tone would have been mocking and detached at worst, not extravagantly wounded and enraged, even though an HRC nomination could also have deprived me of feminist activism as an alternative to electoral politics.
...that’s the luxury of living in a solid-red (or blue, for that matter) state in which one’s general-election vote is basically irrelevant.
I understand what you’re saying, latts, but that has to be the most pathetic attempt to find a silver lining I’ve read all week.
Show me a self-professed feminist who votes for McCain, and I will show you a complete, utter, spiteful fool.
Bitter Scribe on 06/14 at 05:06 PM
Pro Israel feminists.
that’s the luxury of living in a solid-red (or blue, for that matter) state in which one’s general-election vote is basically irrelevant.
What, so the popular vote doesn’t count after all? Then why’d the Clinton campaign spend the last month of the campaign trumpeting that they were ahead in the popular vote, that a majority of Democrats had voted for her, etc.
Snark aside, the margin of victory in the popular vote does make a difference to how the nominee is percevied—assuming that nominee is a Democrat, of course. Repulbicans don’t even have to win the popular vote in order to consolidate unprecedentled power in the executive branch. But it will make a huge difference to Obama’s ability to govern if he is elected by a 20-point majority vs. a 0.5-point majority. And don’t think the Republicans are above reversing their 2000 poisitons should Obama somehow win the electroral college but lose the popular vote.
To “pro-Israel feminists”: If Israel is that damned important to you, move there.
How does voting for someone on the right encourage Dems to move to the left? This makes no sense to me.
pro-Israel
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
that has to be the most pathetic attempt to find a silver lining I’ve read all week.
I don’t really think of it as a silver lining so much as a recognition of my influence on national politics… which is to say that I have none, except maybe in contributions & volunteer work. My vote only has moral value, IOW, so that’s how I’ll use it-- either to lend a tiny bit of weight to the totals for a nominee I like or to deny that weight to one I don’t. And the irony is that I’m a big ol’ Nader resenter, so make of that what you will.
We could probably go on at length about exactly what HRC and Obama represent within the party, why the stakes are different this year than in 2004, and so on… even given the ongoing analysis in the blogosphere, I’m not sure anyone’s really discussed how this year’s internal strife is pretty normal given that the party’s longer-term direction must be decided now. Before Obama clinched the nomination, I saw the main conflict being sort of generational, between the stalwart/hackish (YMMV) Clintonites and the up-and-coming post-boomer activists; now the dead-enders make me wonder what the hell they expected from a political party in the first place. It’s one thing for the youngsters to withdraw in disappointment when their efforts are ignored or worse, but quite another for supposed adults to throw tantrums like this.
Voting is not a form of personal fucking expression. It’s not about validating your personal beliefs by casting a ballot for a candidate who makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. It’s not about feeling “welcome” in a party or a movement. It’s an act of instrumental rationality. It’s always a compromise, it’s always going to be a compromise. Voting to ensure the least bad outcome is fundamental to how democracy works. People who don’t understand this need to grow the fuck up.
Hellz, yeah!
I’m sick of people saying they don’t want to vote for such and such because omg maybe s/he talks funny*. Gawd, it’s about the issues! Don’t you get that yet?
Which is why I vote Green in my country. And personally I voted Obama because he was ahead. I support Clinton but I voted Obama. C’mon, shoot me!! I dare you! -_-
*Remeber all the crap about Clintons voice being shrill?
There is profound fear and distrust toward Obama on Israel issue inside the jewish community. That he will abandon Israel, will not send troop to defend Israel interest, and ultimately negotiate with Iran, Syria and the like.
It’s a well founded fear.
It’s a well founded fear.
Fred Jones on 06/14 at 06:47 PM
Correct. Hence why bloggers who usually can make sharp arguments and see things clearly suddenly not making any sense at all.
I think you must separate “jewish community” from “supporters of Israel”. I know plenty of people who identify as Jewish that find the Israeli aparteid regime to be very repugnant, and dislike US tax dollars going to fund Israel without demands for human rights and justice within borders.
One question Sweet Talk: since when does “feminist” mean “supports a regime that murders whole families out of spite”. So very feminist to murder an accused murder’s mother, sister, cousins, daughters without so much of a trial for the accused.
Oh I get it, it has NOTHING to do with feminism, and everything to do with a spiteful hateful murderous siege and revenge mentality.
That explains it.
There’s a pit bull about to lunge at your throat. You’re holding a stick. But wait: the stick your holding isn’t the one you think you should be holding--it could be a lot bigger and stronger. You have major concerns with the stick selection process. And besides, why do a millions of Americans think it’s cool to let this pitbull out of a cage? What the fuck is up with that?
Barack Obama is our stick. Pointing out that failing to use this stick to defend ourselves could lead to very bad consequences isn’t “threatening.” The pitbull is threatening.
I’m not as vehement as Ms Kate, but I basically agree with her. I hope Israel survives and thrives. But U.S. foreign policy has given Israel a blank check for decades now, and I don’t see that we’ve gotten much of anything in return.
I see that other people have pointed out that some people who were agitating for Hillary were doing so not out of identity politics or feminism, but because they felt that Hillary was better-qualified to be President and because her foreign-policy plans were more in-line with what they wanted. To say “ok, I’ll vote for McCain then” isn’t necessarily a “hissy fit” (it warms the cockles of my heart to see progressives refer to a woman exercising her political choice as a hissy fit, btw).
For any genuine feminist who is possibly considering throwing her vote to McCain as some sort of protest, who thinks that the Democratic party isn’t sufficiently feminist enough to have earned her vote, it is ultimately your choice to protest vote. Just be ready to have the fact that your vote was a protest be completely ignored. The Dems didn’t learn the lesson in 2000 or 2004, and not only that, any dipshit traitor dem who voted for Bush in ‘04 as a protest because Kucinich didn’t get the nomination got lumped in with his amazing 2% “mandate” that he used to strongarm his draconian policies after being re-elected.
If you vote for McCain out of disgust with the Democratic Party’s treatment of you as women, don’t expect any eyes to be opened by it. No one in the Republican party is going to care why you voted McCain, they’re just going to assume you voted McCain because you agreed with his policies, including an overturn of Roe &c;. They’ll take your vote with them on all the political talkshows and bray that the complete destruction of women’s rights, the invasion of Iran, and the wholesale meltdown of the economy is what Americans want. If you still feel that your protest vote for president is important, then let me just say that while it would be nice if you could get the president you deserve, unfortunately, we would get the president you deserve too, and we don’t want him.
I see that other people have pointed out that some people who were agitating for Hillary were doing so not out of identity politics or feminism, but because they felt that Hillary was better-qualified to be President and because her foreign-policy plans were more in-line with what they wanted.
Well, OK then. But then those folks’ candidate did not win the party’s nomination. The way political parties work in this country is that the party chooses a presidential candidate, and all other potential candidates concede. Party members are expected and strongly encouraged to support the chosen candidate. This is the way it has worked for just about all of American political history.
Why is it suddenly when the primaries are between a woman and a black man that everyone’s suddenly all worried that the people who didn’t specifically vote for the winning candidate will jump ship to vote for someone who does not in any way appeal to their political views?
To say “ok, I’ll vote for McCain then” isn’t necessarily a “hissy fit”
Yes, actually, that’s exactly what it is. Unless the person in question is actually not a Democrat at all. In which case what are they doing voting in our primaries in the first place, and why did we think they would support the Democrat in the general election, anyway?
(it warms the cockles of my heart to see progressives refer to a woman exercising her political choice as a hissy fit, btw).
Venting spleen about how your chosen candidate didn’t win the nomination (AFTER the voting is over and the candidate herself has already suspended her campaign and thrown her support behind her opponent) is not “exercising political choice”. It’s a hissy fit. Regardless of whether you have a Y chromosome or not.
I’m a “pro-Israel” feminist, and I wouldn’t vote for McCain even if I could vote in your elections. I am a Zionist in the classic sense because there seems to be an awful lot of people who’d just sort of say, “Whoops, we made a mistake, too bad,” and cancel the State of Israel if they could, and I don’t think it works like that. At least, if we’re going to start cancelling countries that were created by the British in fits of imperialistic fiat, an awful lot of us need to start looking for new places to live. I tend to call those people “political Indians,” because they’re like some of the really hardcore Native Canadian activists I’ve run into—cancel the country, send the white people back to where they “came from,” regardless if they’ve been here for generations.
That doesn’t mean I like Israel’s government. Hell, I don’t even like my own government, and not too many people reading this board like the US government, either, which I guess makes us some kind of multinational traitors or something. (See, I’m really not following the spurious excuse for logic here—supporting the ludicrously basic idea that an established state has the right to continue to exist equals supporting its asstastic government? News to me. And your American privilege is showing again, since you guys don’t ever seem to have the problem that someone else is going to decide to cancel your country.)
Me, if I’d been able to vote in the Dem primaries, I would have been voting Hillary Clinton down the line, because as odious as I think some of her positions are, I think some of Barack Obama’s are even worse (e.g. abortion is between a woman, her doctor, and her minister?! Give me a fuckin’ break! Apparently atheists do not exist in BHO’s world either.), but I’d be voting Democratic in the general anyway, because unlike here, where there are at least three viable parties in any given election (and oftentimes more, and as many as seven or nine parties on the ballot), splitting the vote is a really bad idea.
I learned that the hard way after the provincial NDP nuked itself out of existence and people had to choose between two parties, and we wound up electing a neocon for a Premier, who basically spent the next several years lining his pockets at the public expense, and breaking everything he could get his scabrous hands on.
So very feminist to murder an accused murder’s mother, sister, cousins, daughters without so much of a trial for the accused.
Ms Kate on 06/14 at 07:18 PM
to some people, it is about fear of losing direct family, somebody they know. So universal humanity, choice, equality do seem abstract compared to tangible things like “family member”. So the question of trust is very real. (Obama vs. Lieberman)
I am not saying what happens there is right or continue support of atrocities will fix it. I am just explaining the dynamic that lead to some voting decision.
Great, so then I guess the answer is not to elect politicians who will be setting national policy on geopolitically intense situations where they have close family members personally involved.
Sounds like a great reason for the Dems to stop caucusing with Lieberman, if he does in fact have a lot of family in Israel.
Either that or Lieberman actually doesn’t have close family members in Israel and your whole argument is built out of straw or bullshit or some similar substance.
Besides which, I wasn’t aware that Obama is Palestinian?
there seems to be an awful lot of people who’d just sort of say, “Whoops, we made a mistake, too bad,” and cancel the State of Israel if they could<
These people do exist, I suppose. But their numbers are tiny, and it would not be possible for them to have less influence on American policy.
Sweet talk, thank you for helping explain the mindset.
I don’t think Israel should be removed from the map, I think they should be held to a higher standard than they currently are given how much of our tax money goes their direction.
Israel was founded because of an epic fail of human rights, and intended to prevent a future epic fail of human rights. As such, the UN and the US should not excused them from their atrocities and apartheid simply because it is their turn to play oppressor.
That he will abandon Israel, will not send troop to defend Israel interest, and ultimately negotiate with Iran, Syria and the like.
If “pro-Israel” voters are so concerned about Iran, why’d they support a war to take out Iran’s biggest regional rival, thus vastly increasing Iranian power and influence in the Gulf?
I should add that there is a much broader spectrum of opinion within Israel about matters of Israeli policy than there is in the US. And there is also a much broader spectrum among Jewish Americans than is represented by groups like AIPAC.
“Pro-Israel” shouldn’t be synonymous with “pro-Likud” and more than “patriotic Americans” should be synonymous with “Republicans.”
Not everyone lodging a protest vote is doing it for “warm fuzzies”: there are those who feel that the short-term pain of getting a Republican elected is worth it if it can shock the Democrats out of taking their base for granted and effect a long-term move to the left.
So let me see if I understand this… a bunch of Democrats voting for the right wing loony will convince the Democratic party that it needs to move left? Let’s make this clear… there is no fucking short term pain if McCain is elected. There are four years of suffering followed by God knows how many years of suffering if he manages to get a Supreme Court justice or two in. Look how many votes have been 5-4. Imagine 6 justices like Scalia and Roberts on the bench.
There are three reasons to vote for McCain if you supported Clinton…
“I didn’t support her policies but I wanted a woman to be president.”
“I don’t care what happens to America. My candidate lost and fuck you all.”
“I don’t want a darkie running the country.”
DJA wrote: A vote for McCain is (literally) twice as bad as staying home, but they are both terrible choices and those who make them are wholly contemptible. I don’t mind if you cut off your nose to spite your face, but elections have terrible real-world consequences and people who assist McCain’s candidacy in any way have blood on their hands.
Exactly!
There is profound fear and distrust toward Obama on Israel issue inside the jewish community. That he will abandon Israel, will not send troop to defend Israel interest, and ultimately negotiate with Iran, Syria and the like.
I would hope that no American president would send Americans to die to protect Israel’s interests. Our soldiers should only be expected to fight to protect America’s interests.
Either that or Lieberman actually doesn’t have close family members in Israel and your whole argument is built out of straw or bullshit or some similar substance.
Besides which, I wasn’t aware that Obama is Palestinian?
The Opoponax on 06/14 at 08:57 PM
It could be entirely straw arguments. But Lieberman’s certainly pushing them in big forum like they are real. (on top of usual dirts floating in open forums. Obama muslims, hamas ,etc)
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), a McCain supporter, challenged Sen. Barack Obama’s judgment and experience on Israel and national security issues, following the Illinois senator’s speech this morning at the influential pro-Israel lobbying group American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, conference in Washington. Lieberman said there was “a disconnect between some of the things [Obama] said today” and some of his past statements.
“To be specific, I was troubled earlier in the campaign season when Sen. Obama compared Iran and other rogue and terrorist states to the Soviet Union, and minimized the threat represented by Iran. I think that’s wrong. Today he said he thought Iran represented a grave threat. I think the statement he made today was right.”
http://washingtonindependent.com/view/lieberman-questions
______________
If “pro-Israel” voters are so concerned about Iran, why’d they support a war to take out Iran’s biggest regional rival, thus vastly increasing Iranian power and influence in the Gulf?
DJA on 06/14 at 09:29 PM
There is geopolitical reality and there are political rhetorics. This is campaign season. One hallmark of Israel defense is the realization of not having geographical depth. That explain things like preemptive strike (Yom kippur war, Lebanon occupation, Golan height, Iraq, UNIFIL, etc.) and overwhelmingly superior weapons. The continuing close US engagement in the middle east is very important to Israel defense. They can’t do it alone, simply a matter of economic reality. If US disengage from middle east, Isreal will have to fight 5-6 ways fronts alone. (Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt)
If an incoming US president reduce loan guarantee, military support, gifts, aids, diplomatic backings, UN covers Israel will be instantly in deep economic recession. That is why the tremendous push in washington and the size of lobbying money.
US pulling out of Iraq is absolutely unacceptable to Israel, because Iran will instantly gain the upper hand and Syria-Iraq relationship will return to pre-war level. Israel will all of a sudden has to deal with Syria + hezbollah connected to Iraq oil and supplied with Iran advance weapon.
I don’t understand why these Feministing commentators (and others) have been saying that Obama isn’t trying to earn women’s vote (and that he should do so). Aren’t his policies on “women’s issues” largely amenable to most people interested in such things? How did “my own policies are what you want, and the other guy’s really aren’t” become “he’s taking us for granted” ? Isn’t setting out a particular set of your policies trying to earn support from the group they benefit?
The fact is that feminist support for Obama should be for granted; just like, say, the anti-war vote should.
I have a question for the Obama supporters who keep yelling at Clinton supporters to fall in line and support Obama…
You ever think that maybe, just maybe, saying “Hey, the OTHER GUY will be EVEN WORSE!” is kind of an abusers’ tactic?
US pulling out of Iraq is absolutely unacceptable to Israel, because Iran will instantly gain the upper hand and Syria-Iraq relationship will return to pre-war level. Israel will all of a sudden has to deal with Syria + hezbollah connected to Iraq oil and supplied with Iran advance weapon.
So I’m still not sure why you think it’s a good thing, from Israel’s perspective, that we took out a secular strongman whose nation was a check on Iranian power, and instead created a regional power vaccuum that Iran has been able to step into and exploit to its advantage.
Are you saying that the “pro-Israel feminists” we were talking about are actually in favor of us staying in Iraq for 100 years. In which case, I have my doubts they were ever really going to vote Democratic in the first place.
You ever think that maybe, just maybe, saying “Hey, the OTHER GUY will be EVEN WORSE!” is kind of an abusers’ tactic?
Is it true or isn’t it?
Also:
Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Egypt
Egypt? Israel and Egypt are going to get into a shooting war? Really? Really.
Is it true or isn’t it?
Is that the point?
Really, would you ask a woman who was stuck in an emotionally abusive relationship to stay with that guy, because hey, at least he’s not hitting her?
Many of the women who want to leave the Democratic party over this feel that the DNC has taken their votes for granted for too long, and a message has to be sent. And I can’t say as I disagree with the sentiment.
Is that the point?
Yes.
Listen, had Hillary prevailed there would be many African-Americans who would want to leave the Democratic Party over this and would feel that their votes had been taken for granted. I don’t think hardly any would threaten to vote for McCain, but there would certainly be a number of black voters who felt disillusioned and wanted to stay home. But the message is the same: if you help elect John McCain, even by your inaction, then hundreds of thousands more people will die needlessly.
Your vote doesn’t mean you are in a “relationship” with a candidate or a party. Your vote is a means to an end. In this case, the end is preventing more senseless wars. That’s a pretty important end. I think it might even be more important than individual hurt feelings.
You feel that objecting to the rampant sexism in the campaign, from the media and from DNC leaders, is “individual hurt feelings”?
Why are you at a feminist site, then?
So I’m still not sure why you think it’s a good thing, from Israel’s perspective, that we took out a secular strongman whose nation was a check on Iranian power, and instead created a regional power vaccuum that Iran has been able to step into and exploit to its advantage.
It was suppose to be a cake walk. Install Chalabi and be home before lunch. Just like Lebanon war was suppose to be a cake walk, blow Hezbollah in aerial bombing and be home before lunch. (ie. neocon and Likudniks are the dumbest military strategist ever to walk on earth. Big on war talk, zero on result. They think having the biggest gun is automatic win regardless of anything else. And we have the biggest gun.)
Are you saying that the “pro-Israel feminists” we were talking about are actually in favor of us staying in Iraq for 100 years. In which case, I have my doubts they were ever really going to vote Democratic in the first place.
DJA on 06/14 at 11:09 PM
Ooriginally Obama is not even on the map. It’s Hillary or McCain. Hillary supposes to coast, she is the inevitable. Pro Israel voters couldn’t care less if we are in Iraq for another 1000 yrs. As long as Israel external threats are taken care off. For eg. there is no connection between continuing Iraq war and Iran. (Obliterate Iran and Kyl-Lieberman. Going crazy over Syria) Furthermore to them there is no connection between fiscal policy, national budget, inflation, middle east stability, unemployment or national well being.
The simple view is anybody not hardline against Iran, Syria, Palestine is bad for Israel. Hawkish is good. Everybody else is bad. Negotiation is definitely out of the question. That’s the reality. You certainly can survey the blog. (of course this only explains some members of so called Hillary4McCain voters.)
You feel that objecting to the rampant sexism in the campaign, from the media and from DNC leaders, is “individual hurt feelings”?
Not what I said, nor what I meant, but that was phrased badly and I apologize.
Nonetheless, I still fail to see the logical connection between legitimate disgust at the rampant sexisim in the media (which I share, BTW), and voting for the guy who’s going around promising “There will be other wars, my friends.”
Egypt? Israel and Egypt are going to get into a shooting war? Really? Really.
DJA on 06/14 at 11:13 PM
no love loss between them if that’s what you are asking (specially after Gaza wall incident. Egyptian aids being cut. and Egypt high level talk with Iran. Search the news) Relationship between egypt and Israel has been deteriorating in recent months. They are not that friendly to begin after the war. If Iran carry their word about giving nuclear technology to any Islamic nation, you can guarantee Israel will start shooting at egypt when they go nuclear.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/939831.html
Iranian envoy offers Egypt cooperation on nuclear program
Iran is willing to cooperate with Egypt on its nuclear program, a senior Iranian official said in Cairo on Sunday
Ali Larijani, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s representative to the Iranian Supreme National Security Council, spoke during a conference of the Egyptian Journalists Association. He said that were Egypt to ask for assistance, Iran would be willing to cooperate under the International Atomic Energy Agency’s guidelines and supervision.
IRNA, Iran’s official news agency, quoted Larijani as saying that “relations between Egypt and Iran surpass comradeship and shared interests,” adding that the two countries “share a deep historical bond.”
Nonetheless, I still fail to see the logical connection between legitimate disgust at the rampant sexisim in the media (which I share, BTW), and voting for the guy who’s going around promising “There will be other wars, my friends.”
I honestly don’t believe that most of the women leaving the DNC in disgust will vote for McCain. I think that meme’s being propagated by a rampantly racist and sexist media in order to keep the progressives divided, because the media is firmly in the pocket of the Republicans, and will do anything for their good friend McCain. Why, McCain throws them barbecues! What a nice guy!
So, I would say, view the whole “women are leaving Clinton for McCain!” thing with extreme distrust.
So, I would say, view the whole “women are leaving Clinton for McCain!” thing with extreme distrust.
Oh, I do. In fact, I took that to be the point of Katiie’s “Loyalty Oath”—pointing out the inherent absurdity of crossing over from Hillary to McCain.
But it’s also true that for a progressive voter, staying home or casting a third-party vote are horrible choices, for the same reasons they were horrible choices in 2000.
But it’s also true that for a progressive voter, staying home or casting a third-party vote are horrible choices, for the same reasons they were horrible choices in 2000.
Perhaps. But if Obama wants the Clinton supporters to vote for him, especially the ones who are disgusted by the sexism of the primary, he needs a lot more than “The other guy is worse!”
He’s not owed their votes. He owes them a reason to vote for him.
I agree that Obama should do outreach to disaffected Hillary voters. He’s already doing that.
But “the other guy is worse” is an excellent reason, the only reason any rational person should need. It’s the one and only rationale for every single general election vote I’ve ever cast. “The other guy is worse” is the very heart and soul of democracy. I mean that quite sincerely.
Flewellyn, I have been in an abusive relationship, and I have to say I really resent you twisting this election into some kind of “abuse” situation.
Feeling the pressure to make a compromise vote because the candidate you wanted didn’t win your party’s primary is NOT FUCKING ABUSE YOU ASSHOLE.
It is politics.
It is politics that has happened in every goddamn election this country has had for the past 200 years.
Other people advising you to make an incredibly important and ultimately very slight compromise in the voting booth several months from now (people who will never actually know who you did or did not vote for, unless you tell them), is actually nothing like being abused, or like being told to stay in an abusive relationship. Shit, it’s not even anything like being told to stay in an abusive relationship in order to make things better or easier for someone else (and yes, I have actually been a part of that particular conversation before, so I am in a position to fucking know). You know what else it’s not like, at all? It’s not like being told later that you made a mistake in leaving the abuser, and really it’s not like that guy was even that mean to you or anything. Another conversation I have actually had to fucking participate in.
For that matter, I hardly see how it is “abuse” for a member of a political party to be expected to vote for a candidate who is virtually identical to the one they wanted (’cept skin color, of course), and who is on their side of pretty much every single issue. When your next boyfriend decides to start anally raping you on a regular basis, you might perhaps understand the distinction. Until then, kindly STFU.
I have to say, I find the rhetoric of so-called “feminists” trying to twist feminism to justify voting for a conservative Republican they vehemently disagree with so as to avoid voting for a black person a hell of a lot more offensive than any of the sexism I saw the media use during the primary season. Hillary nutcracker included. Especially the one where they act like domestic abuse and not winning an election are the same thing.
Flewellyn, I have been in an abusive relationship, and I have to say I really resent you twisting this election into some kind of “abuse” situation.
It seems to match the feelings of many of the women I know who are pissed off with the DNC, though. Many of whom have also been in abusive relationships.
I have to say, I find the rhetoric of so-called “feminists” trying to twist feminism to justify voting for a conservative Republican they vehemently disagree with so as to avoid voting for a black person a hell of a lot more offensive than any of the sexism I saw the media use during the primary season.
I don’t believe that the “Clinton supporters are gonna vote for McCain” thing is true, anyway. The media sure are pushing it, but these days, if the media say the sky is blue, I’m tempted to seek outside corroboration.
I have a question for the Obama supporters who keep yelling at Clinton supporters to fall in line and support Obama…
You ever think that maybe, just maybe, saying “Hey, the OTHER GUY will be EVEN WORSE!” is kind of an abusers’ tactic?
Is that what happened in the post that started this thread? Really? I suggest you reread it. Maybe that argument was made elsewhere, but Auguste didn’t make it, and to introduce it in this context, hinting that it was made here is more than a little dishonest.
Auguste didn’t make that argument, but the thing he was quoting did.
It seems to match the feelings of many of the women I know who are pissed off with the DNC, though...
You know what?
No.
Just fucking NO.
N
O
I hate to accuse anyone of making up rape or abuse, but any woman who says she has experienced abuse, and then also says that Hillary not winning the Democratic nomination is anywhere within about a kajillion miles of anything that being in an abusive relationship is like, IS BOTH A LIAR AND A NON-FEMINIST. Unless maybe by “abuse” she means “that time I struck up a conversation with this really cute guy, but it turned out he was gay.”
There are no ifs ands or buts about this.
I know it sucks when you don’t get your way, or when you really thought something cool would happen and then it didn’t, or when you are racist but don’t want to admit it and there are all these people breathing down your neck to vote for the black guy and you don’t want to, but look, if you are an adult who in any way deserves the right to vote her feminist predecessors worked so hard to get her, you move on. And you don’t try to pretend like the disappointment you feel is the same as being beaten or raped or even deeply emotionally fucked with. You especially don’t do that when you are trying to pretend that you share common cause or stand in solidarity with people who have actually experienced that.
I mean, really. What if I said that Bloomberg being re-elected mayor of New York was like having the Klan burn crosses on my lawn? Nobody would fucking stand for that shit. I would be an absolute shitheel, and anyone in their right mind would be sure to remind me of that fact.
And now I am going to go away from this blog, maybe go look at some pictures of cute puppies or kittens to calm down a touch, and get some sleep.
I hate to accuse anyone of making up rape or abuse, but any woman who says she has experienced abuse, and then also says that Hillary not winning the Democratic nomination is anywhere within about a kajillion miles of anything that being in an abusive relationship is like, IS BOTH A LIAR AND A NON-FEMINIST.
No, you are misunderstanding. Clinton not losing is not what I speak of. It’s the actions taken by many Obama supporters, and the leadership of the DNC, which is reminiscent of abusers’ logic.
so, McCain supporters and GOP leadership are nicer? I am confuse....
Auguste didn’t make that argument, but the thing he was quoting did.
The oath does not make that argument--I assume that’s what you’re talking about when you say “that thing” as opposed to the author. It does put forward a very succinct and accurate argument--that a vote for McCain is a vote against feminist values. Barack Obama’s name is mentioned nowhere in that document, nor is there a statement that a vote for anyone else other than Barack Obama would be the same as a vote for John McCain. It simply says that voting for John McCain is--and this is my translation--is an anti-feminist act, and if you’re willing to do that, then be willing to live with the consequences should he win and your rights are further limited as a result.
When you read into that statement the notion that Halper is arguing “the other guy will be worse,” you’re adding in a layer that does not exist in the original. There is no advocacy for a particular candidate in that document--there is only a statement about what will happen should McCain win.
Now, if you’re referring to the rest of Halper’s post, then you’ve referred to her as a thing that’s been quoted. Maybe it’s clumsy usage, and I’m certainly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that, but even then, Halper only mentions Obama in the context of Clinton having urged her supporters to vote for and support him. But the oath itself, which is what Auguste quoted, certainly does not make the argument you say it does.
Not everyone lodging a protest vote is doing it for “warm fuzzies”: there are those who feel that the short-term pain of getting a Republican elected is worth it if it can shock the Democrats out of taking their base for granted and effect a long-term move to the left.
Yeah, that was me in 2000. I voted Nader. I never thought Bush would win, but I miscalculated all to fuck. And it worked - the Democratic party of today is about a million times better than it was - braver, stronger, and more proud to be a democratic party. And 4000 US soldiers are dead, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and the country’s gone straight to hell. If I had it to do over, I’d vote Gore. Because having a party that makes me proud is nothing compared to the value of a single human life. And that’s that.
Flewellyn, for the love of God, just shut up. You’re a whiny little brat and you ought to be treated like the child you are until you’re ready to act like a fucking adult and end this temper tantrum.
You’re arguing utter, offensive bullshit, and it’s just proving that there’s a whole sdegment of the Hillbot crowd that 1) still exists, and 2) is still acting like everything, EVERYTHING, that has ever happened to them or to Hillary has been rampant screaming sexism.
Just.
Shut.
Up.
(Clarification: By “Hillbot”, I specifically mean those Hillary supporters who, rather than accept her defeat and find a new path to whatever goal they may have had individually, kept insisting that victory was just around the corner and that everyone saying otherwise was stupid, sexist, or a combination of the two.)
Flewellyn:
It’s the actions taken by many Obama supporters, and the leadership of the DNC, which is reminiscent of abusers’ logic.
So let me get this straight. If I tell you that if you don’t run like fuck, that grizzly bear headed straight towards you is going to eat your face, I’m being abusive towards you?
Based on this, Flewellyn, I’m forced to conclude that you don’t actually have the slightest fucking clue what the word “abuse” means.
Based on the replies I’ve gotten here, Pandagon is a loss as a feminist, progressive blog.
Goodbye.
I supported Clinton for over a year until her campaign went too negative in the run-up to Pennsylvania and the campaign lost control of some of its surrogates (notably Bill Clinton). I didn’t dislike Obama; I just felt Clinton was the stronger candidate on paper and, as a woman, I wanted to be able to support a woman candidate.
I’ve been somewhat active in feminist politics for a long time. I was very concerned by the tone that a group Pennsylvania feminists took about Obama before the primary. Suddenly, our reproductive rights were at stake if we voted for Obama, despite the fact that both Clinton and Obama have a 100% rating from NARAL.
I HATE the big lie, so often practiced by Republican candidates over the last 30 years and I was extremely concerned that women whose opinions I normally had great respect for chose to engage in that kind of politicking.
Still, it was interested in talking to other women around my own age (50ish), who really wanted to vote for Clinton, wound up voting for Obama. This probably explains her thnner than expected margin in Pennsylvania; she was supposed to win by double digits and won by about 9 points.
I fully support Obama; we need someone like him in the White House. There’s been very little talk about the Supreme Court in this discussion, but getting rational, thoughtful people back on the Supreme Court is critical. And while reproductive freedoms are important (hell, even to those of us getting past reproductive age), having a Supreme Court in place that wasn’t so partisan and really respected long-held rights like the rights of habeous corpus is critical. The only way to avoid having more Scalitos on the court is to elect a Democrat. McCain will just put in more people like Thomas and Roberts, which is exactly what this country doesn’t need.
I have a question for the Obama supporters who keep yelling at Clinton supporters to fall in line and support Obama…
You ever think that maybe, just maybe, saying “Hey, the OTHER GUY will be EVEN WORSE!” is kind of an abusers’ tactic?
One of the worst comments I’ve ever seen here.
You know, everyone is saying that Obama is taking the “woman vote” for granted, but that was precisely why I didn’t vote for Clinton - I felt like she took my vote for granted. As in, “Well, I’m a woman, so all the women voters will vote for me. Check that demographic off the list.”
I’m not saying I’m right or wrong, just that that was how I felt. When Obama says that he cares about womens’ issues (and he does say that, frequently), I have a greater tendency to feel like he’s reaching out. After all, HE isn’t likely to need an abortion any time soon, but he still seems to be fighting for my right to have one. I like that ability to fight for something potentially damaging, even if you personally have no stake in the outcome of the issue.
Wow, this blog has completely lost its way under the howling of the Obamabots. You all are attacking (ATTACKING!!) the one voice of reason on here, who has been calm and polite this whole time, and pointed out one small critism in tone. And you lot jump all over him like you’re a bunch of Fundie jerks and he just said this isn’t a Christian country.
Based on the reaction Flew got, I’m out, too. And I say this as someone who voted for Obama once, and plans to do so again. But you are making me embarrassed to admit I support the same man you do. You lot want to see the Dems snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory? Keep telling ex-Hillary supporters “We’ll GIVE you something to cry about!” Then understand that YOU cost your guy his victory, by ignoring his calls for reconciliation and instead digging up the threating and/or dismissive language. Not those who voted for Hillary and are now being chased out of the party. YOU!!
Now quit your whining and threats, sit down, shut up and play nice. That is, if you’re serious about not wanting a McCain presidency. I’m not convinced you are, given how determined you are to drive away 18 million voters. Smart politics, that, if you want McCain to win.
Keep telling ex-Hillary supporters “We’ll GIVE you something to cry about!”
Might want to read what GumbyAnne said above:
If I say “if large numbers of women refuse to vote for Obama and he loses we will all lose our right to choose” I am not “threatening” anything. I am describing something that will happen. In order for it to be a threat I would have to have some control over the outcome.
Now quit your whining and threats, sit down, shut up and play nice.
What threats?
John McCain’s policies are anti-woman. Voting for John McCain is voting for anti-woman policies being put into place.
Based on the replies I’ve gotten here, Pandagon is a loss as a feminist, progressive blog.
Goodbye.
So wait--pointing out that the thing you were complaining about wasn’t actually being said means that the people here are neither feminist nor progressive? Sounds to me like you just don’t want to admit that you made an error in what you were mad about. You got called out and don’t want to admit that you overstepped, so it’s suddenly our fault for not letting you get away with it.
McCain’s policies aren’t “just” anti-woman. They’re anti poor and middle class, too. They’re anti environmental. They’re just more of the same Republican crap we’ve gotten for many years.
However, I don’t think the “McCain Democrat” is any more an invention of the media than the “Regan Democrat” was. They’re out there.
While some of my husband’s cousins voted for Obama (and some for McCain), the aunts and uncles are scared of Obama even if they still tend to vote Democratic. One explained to me in all seriousness how every time a black person was elected to be mayor of a city, the city fell apart. I guess they’d never been to places like Atlanta or Chicago. *sigh*
Now quit your whining and threats, sit down, shut up and play nice.
GreyLadyBast on 06/15 at 09:45 AM
actually everybody was asking what Hillary4McCain-ers are thinking. One after another nonsensical answers are debunked. Then the usual final answer come out “ I am taking my ball and go home” what do you mean my argument is completely wrong and not persuasive… waa waa…
Do try your emotional blackmailing in McCain crowd and see if you have a voice. People won’t even consider your argument let alone spending time answering with realistic argument.
So have fun in McCain land.
There is profound fear and distrust toward Obama on Israel issue inside the jewish community.
No, there isn’t.
it warms the cockles of my heart to see progressives refer to a woman exercising her political choice as a hissy fit, btw
No one on this page did that until you did.
With a very small change in the primary, we’d have instead have had a lot of accusations of a racist primary. I think it does bare mentioning that there wasn’t a lot of sexist actions coming from Obama or his surrogates. And while I think some of Hillary’s surrogates treaded much closer to racist actions, ultimately the most race baiting and gender bashing came from the media. Both sides had their moments of presuming that the media was a part of their opponents campaign, but they weren’t. It was just there to drum up animosity between both sides of the party. Why are we letting ourselves fall for it? Why would we be demanding either candidate to prove their bonafides? Both have time and time again. Hillary Clinton would have been a powerful advocate for the black community and Barrack Obama will be a powerful advocate for women. The whole of their political record shows this. Sitting back and insisting that they prove it fails to see that they have carried out their political careers consistently proving this. That other parties injected sexism or racism into the campaign was inevitable, but I don’t see what we gain by holding the other candidate responsible for that. On the issues, on their actions, Hillary Clinton had clearly earned the support of the black community just as Barrack Obama had earned the support of women.
But as long as we’re talking about the media drumming up discontent, that’s what is happening here. Clinton’s supporters were going to come around to Obama. That was always going to happen and Clinton’s powerful endorsement is the first step in that process. Were there going to be handful who’d take their proverbial ball and go home? Of course. And don’t start on how Obama supporters are “threatening” the Clinton supports who do this. That was the intent of the Clinton supporters in the first place. They’ve been threatening to withhold support from Obama for months in an effort to force their will on the Democratic party. So, its clear who started this. But the truth is, it has always been a small group. I don’t care what polls say. When your candidate is still waging their campaign, its far more likely to insist on their ultimate victory. Most of those people were going to assess the situation and recognize that Barrack Obama best represents the ideals they were voting for all along. The few holdouts, however, are going to try to draw outsized attention to themselves. Their threat didn’t work, but they won’t let go. So the media will flock to them to give them the attention they demand. The MEDIA is turning this into an ordeal. Did this media question why presumptive nominee John McCain kept doing so poorly in Republican primaries after effectively locking up the nomination? No. But when Democrats have two outstanding candidates who both get a tremendous amount of support, it becomes a party divided. This is media manipulation with just a few useful fools playing along. So the Obama supporters getting up in arms over this need to get over themselves, too. You’re playing into the manufactured division. You’re every bit the useful fool as the Clinton supporters rushing to sell out the Democratic party. Just let this rest. If by August there is still a significant number of feminists insisting they will support John McCain, then there might be a need to respond by illustrating the consequences of a McCain presidency. But we can’t jump at every effort of the media to goad us into disunity. Let the process of coming together go ahead. It will. You’re not helping by agreeing with the media that this is a problem.
.
The post primary number start to move in the usual pattern.
But while the McCain campaign apparently believes that women are easy marks for its latent feminist cross-dressing, a reality check suggests that most women can instantly identify any man who’s hitting on them for selfish ends. New polls show Mr. Obama opening up a huge lead among female voters — beating Mr. McCain by 13 percentage points in the Gallup and Rasmussen polls and by 19 points in the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News survey.
How huge is a 13- to 19-percentage-point lead? John Kerry won women by only 3 points, Al Gore by 11.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/15/53819/7603/799/536195
RASMUSSEN: McCain Plummets Nationally To 39%, Arkansas Within Single Digits
Sunday’s Rasmussen national three day tracking poll shows Obama with 46% and McCain with only 39%, the first time that McCain has fallen below 40% in a head to head matchup with Obama. When leaners are included, Obama leads 49% to 43%.
I would love to know what all these sexist statements made by Obama were. But there were plenty of racist actions coming from Clinton’s surrogates and supporters. Does anyone recall what Geraldine Ferraro said? Does anyone recall what Bill Clinton said in South Carolina? And how many of those voting for Clinton in West Virginia and Kentucky said they are voting for Clinton because they don’t want a black man running the country? Clinton ran the most racist campaign since George Wallace ran in 1968.
Obama has been reaching out to Clinton supporters and speaking on women’s issues since his campaign began. To think otherwise shows that you are living in some kind of Clintonesque vacuum and have no interest in the truth.
So please list the sexist statements coming from Obama. At least one.
So have fun in McCain land.
What part of “YOU will be responsible for a McCain win, by deliberately and determinedly driving away ex-Hillary supporters” did you fail to comprehend?
If you nitwits actually WANT Obama to win, you will stop embarrassing him, his campaign, and his non-insane supporters with this nonsense. If you will not overcome your hubris to do so, I can only conclude that you do not, in fact, want an Obama presidency and are trying to make damned sure McCain wins, by throwing away massive amounts of Obama support, solely because you aren’t getting your ass kissed to your satisfaction. Grow up, and knock it off, or else YOU can “have fun in McCain land,” as you so clearly desire.
Rabid Obamabots = McCain presidency. End of story.
, solely because you aren’t getting your ass kissed to your satisfaction.
Citation please.
Why would we be demanding either candidate to prove their bonafides? Both have time and time again. Hillary Clinton would have been a powerful advocate for the black community and Barrack Obama will be a powerful advocate for women. The whole of their political record shows this. Sitting back and insisting that they prove it fails to see that they have carried out their political careers consistently proving this.
This is one of the most rational comments in this entire thread. Just wanted to send some props.
What part of “YOU will be responsible for a McCain win, by deliberately and determinedly driving away ex-Hillary supporters” did you fail to comprehend?
GreyLadyBast on 06/15 at 10:58 AM
I only see you throwing tantrum after not being able to advance sensible argument. Is that how the hillary supporter worked during her primary? No wonder she lost the primary.
I hope you work hard for McCain primary this way too. (I can see your touch is already working nicely on the general poll. Keep up the good work.)
Rabid Obamabots = McCain presidency. End of story.
*delurk* You vote for the candidate, not his supporters. I’m going to say this—sure, there are plenty of smug assholes supporting Obama, but if it weren’t an election year they’d be smug assholes about something else. If you have a genuine objection to the CANDIDATE, don’t vote for him. But don’t say, “Well, I’ve met many of his supporters and they’re just a buch of shitheads.” You’ll find shitheads in every camp, unfortunately, so just have to ignore them and decide for yourself. Upthread, someone mentioned how it’s just going to be you in that voting booth—you and your convictions. Drown out the noise of the media and the supporters, don’t think about the many nicknames for the candidates. Just decide for yourself.
If your answer is not Obama, that’s fine. No argument from me. I just don’t think you should justify it by blaming those of us who support him for being “smug assholes.” We aren’t running for president.
You all are attacking (ATTACKING!!) the one voice of reason on here, who has been calm and polite this whole time, and pointed out one small critism in tone. And you lot jump all over him like you’re a bunch of Fundie jerks and he just said this isn’t a Christian country.
Making an offensive comparison between the actions of the DNC and an abusive partner is being “calm and polite”?
Sorry, but only someone who’s never actually been in an abusive relationship can claim that anything that happens in politics is remotely comparable to having an intimate partner constantly tear you down physically and/or emotionally.
Flewellyn made an offensive comparison and Opo called him/her out on it because, unfortunately, Opo knows much better than Flewellyn that there is no comparison. And if we’re going to play Who’s Anti-Feminist, don’t you think that trivializing abuse against women by saying that what happened in this primary is just as bad as if my husband beats me is pretty goddamn anti-feminist?
But what about the 33% of women that support McCain? Ah, that’s where different polling data helps us, and John McCain’s reproductive rights stance helps us more. Back in March, Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. was commissioned to study this for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (survey data from February, 20081). According to Hart,
Women voters in these likely battleground states will be a critical swing audience in the presidential race. At this point in the campaign, these women voters are divided fairly evenly intheir presidential choice, with a small marginal preference for either of the two Democratic candidates; these women give Obama a five-point margin over McCain (41% to 36%) and Clinton a three-point margin over McCain (43% to 40%).
and more significantly
John McCain’s position on women’s reproductive health issues has real potential to cost him support among this key segment of battleground women voters. In fact, about half of women voters (49%) backing McCain in a match-up against either Obama or Clinton express pro-choice views on abortion. Fully 46% of all women supporting McCain over Obama and 47% of women supporting McCain over Clinton want to see Roe upheld, including 36% in each match-up who say they feel strongly about their support for Roe. These deep and sizable divisions within McCain’s base among battleground women suggest real potential for fracture on this issue alone.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/15/83321/2771/761/536225
If you will not overcome your hubris to do so, I can only conclude that you do not, in fact, want an Obama presidency and are trying to make damned sure McCain wins, by throwing away massive amounts of Obama support
If insufficiently-deferential comments on a blog are all that it takes to drive you into the arms of McCain, I rather question whether your support for Obama could have ever been described as “massive.”
People who voted Hillary in the primary and are threatening to vote McCain in the general are going to vote McCain in the general no matter what we say, because they planned to do that all along. The only reason they voted Hillary in the primary was because the GOP primaries were over and they wanted to set up McCain against the weakest possible candidate.
So, for my own part, and knowing that Obama’s record in office is more than enough to convince any reasonable person that he’s a progressive on women’s issues, I’m not particularly interested in attempting to placate people who can’t be placated. You McCain spite-voters were going to vote McCain anyway. Why should I waste my time trying to stop y
Way to completely miss the point of Clinton supporters voting for McCain.
Have these people ever actually voted or participated in any way in the American political process before?
Because last time I went to the polls, I don’t recall there being an essay section of the ballot where I got to explain exactly what the “point” of my electoral choices was. A vote for Candidate X is simply a vote for Candidate X, and that’s all you get.
I also hope that the newly minted Hillarepublicans understand that even if sexist policies aren’t the actual reason you chose to vote for McCain, said policy will still apply to you. I voted for Hillary Clinton when she ran for senate, but her hawkish stance on defense wasn’t “the point” of that vote—I still have to live in a universe where we went to war with Iraq.
Sometimes I feel like all this voting-oriented reality TV has really confused the conceptual underpinnings of what it means to participate in the democratic process. You’re not picking the best no-talent popstar or has-been celebrity ballroom dancer. YOU’RE ELECTING THE PEOPLE WHO WILL SET POLICY THAT ACTUALLY AFFECTS YOUR LIFE.