Will Obama lose women in the fall?
posted at 10:30 am on May 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sexism seems to be the topic of the day. From Howard Kurtz to Geraldine Ferraro, the question of the women’s vote after an Obama nomination has suddenly jumped to the fore — and not just publicly, either. My mailbox has more than a few missives from liberal women who claim that they will find casting a vote for Barack Obama nearly impossible, thanks to the bruising identity-politics campaign in this primary season. Women perceive Obama as diminishing them as he diminishes Hillary, and even when those slights seem mostly imaginary, they resonate.
Kurtz looks at this logically:
Women are pretty ticked off these days.
That’s the clear message emerging from the latest round of media post-mortems on Hillary Clinton’s losing candidacy, which journalists now frame as a fait accompli. (And maybe there’s something to that, with Politico reporting that “Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager and confidante, Patti Solis Doyle, and Senator Barack Obama’s top advisor have informally discussed the former Clintonite’s going to work for the Obama campaign in the general election.” Et tu, Patti?)
Numerous women — journalists themselves and those interviewed by journalists — believe the former first lady has gotten a raw deal, especially from the media. It’s no accident that Hillary’s positive ad in Oregon takes a swipe at Tim Russert, Chris Matthews and George Stephanopoulos–all men, last time I checked, and one of them her former White House colleague.
On an emotional level, it’s easy to understand why many female voters feel they’re been robbed. For the first time in their lifetimes, they could see one of their own occupying the Oval Office. And, in the space of a few weeks, that dream began to evaporate.
Identity politics doesn’t work on a logical plane, though; it relies on emotional connections, regardless of which identity is in play. Take a look at Geraldine Ferraro on the Today show this morning, explaining a laundry list of slights from Obama and the media:
Some of this seems a little harsh. The example of the Democratic debates suggest a very thin skin, and almost a pre-feminist expectation of gallantry from the men on stage. She was the front-runner! Of course her competitors would have to attack her policies and positions. The “brush-off” gesture also didn’t appear to have a gender message, although since he borrowed it from a rap artist — and rappers aren’t known for their uplifting imagery of women — one could argue an indirect, subliminal condescension specific to Hillary as a woman.
Ferraro’s example of “Annie Oakley” appears dead-on, though, and it’s not the only example. Dean Barnett runs down a list that has begun traveling through e-mail of late, including Sweetiegate. The media barely mentioned that and rushed to absolve Obama of his spontaneous condescension and dismissal of a female reporter, and Ferraro complains about that as well in this segment with Meredith Viera. She recalls the incident at a Hillary event where a couple of jokers held up a sign that said, “IRON MY SHIRT!” The media shrugged, Ferraro charges, but would have created crisis desks if someone had held a sign that said “SHINE MY SHOES!” at an Obama event.
Perception or reality, a number of women have started insisting that they will not support Barack Obama if he wins the nomination. As Kurtz notes, African-Americans would say the same about Hillary if she won the nomination. It shows the endgame of identity politics — disunity, anger, resentment, and collapse.
Obama will get pressured to accept Hillary as a running mate to assuage the resentments his campaign has created, but that will be a hard sell, mostly because it won’t gain him much except a running mate with even higher negatives than he has. Look for Obama to choose more wisely and look at either Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas or Janet Napolitano of Arizona, both governors in red states where they can help Obama possibly steal a march on Republicans. Obama needs to give women a reason to return to the fold, and such a move would likely succeed.
Update: Sibelius is the governor of Kansas, not Oklahoma. Thanks to Wayne H for the correction.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Pfft, can you believe we let girls vote? Man, what a world.
Enrique on May 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM
My Favorite Liberal, who has never voted for a Republican in her entire life, says she will vote for McCain in the Fall if Obama is the Democrat nominee.
She attributes this intent to her deep and utter loathing of Michelle Obama, rather than any perceived slight to Hillary Clinton, however.
gridlock2 on May 20, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Whose the guy sitting next to Geraldine Ferraro?
ZoneDaiatlas on May 20, 2008 at 10:38 AM
It is hilarious to see Geraldine Ferraro trying desperately to get back into Shillary’s good graces by dissing B.O. every chance she gets. She seems to have a hard time understanding the concept when you are thrown under the bus, that’s it. There is no coming back
pilamaye on May 20, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Won’t it be a real hoot if it is Michelle Obama who drives off women voters from her husband?
EJDolbow on May 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM
“Perception or reality, a number of women have started insisting that they will not support Barack Obama if he wins the nomination. As Kurtz notes, African-Americans would say the same about Hillary if she won the nomination. It shows the endgame of identity politics — disunity, anger, resentment, and collapse.”
Rush, you magnificent b@stard!
Operation Chaos is working even better than we expected!
FloridaBill on May 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM
That’s a man baby!!
Shagadelic.
redrock on May 20, 2008 at 10:44 AM
Yes the soccer moms and the female CEO’s have had their noses tweaked, but stay home and not vote, or crossover? Some, sure, but (here comes the sexist part), it’s all about the children, and the war, and lending a helping hand even if you aren’t getting a helping hand yourself.
Switch that to the black vote and the Dems are running scared. There is a big difference between a bunch of ‘disenfranchised’ black voters and held down feminists, especially when they are marching in front of the HDTV cams.
One group will be throwing rocks while the other is twirling bras above their heads.
Limerick on May 20, 2008 at 10:45 AM
all these dems that have told us they are “moderates” and “centrist” over the years. If they support someone on the far-left like Obama vs. a moderate like McCain(who they’ve claimed to love) then we should all hold their feet to the fire.
jp on May 20, 2008 at 10:46 AM
…and yet the lefty blogs keep insisting that their two candidates are the cream of the crop….but adding the two together is a net negative.
Think_b4_speaking on May 20, 2008 at 10:48 AM
Quite frankly this nonsense about sexism is just as bad as the nonsense about racism. Both are a dodge to avoid any kind of real self examination. If McCain wins in November the first thing out of the lefts mouth will be the word racism and it is rather disgusting and shameful in my view. By pretending identity matters more the left can avoid addressing the fact that they field just plain bad candidates at the national level.
NotCoach on May 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
With women ready to bolt, what better time for
Sarah Palin?
petefrt on May 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
“That’s right, sweetie, just pull my lever.”
-Barack Obama, on the female vote.
James on May 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Kathleen Sibelius of
OklahomaKansasmymanpotsandpans on May 20, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Republicans are whistling in the dark if they really believe there will be a significant crossover vote for McCain over HRC’s rough treatment. Right now there is a bitterness about their girl losing to Obama but come November they will go into the booth, hold their nose, and vote for the 2008 addition of Benito Mussolini. If any woman is hot enough over this to think about voting Republican she is also most likely hanging her polictical views out there with Barak nayway
jerryofva on May 20, 2008 at 10:55 AM
OT but curious….The Oregon primary is voting by mail. Is it the same in the general? If so what are the controls?
Limerick on May 20, 2008 at 10:56 AM
That’s a weird combination of sylables. I’ll shorten that to Obamanation
Big John on May 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Sarah Palin, fire-breathing conservative former Miss Alaska. Talk to her about ANWR. Talk to her about abortion.
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM
.
I think that should be Obamination – grammmatically as well as intellectually.
Think_b4_speaking on May 20, 2008 at 10:58 AM
This is tantalizing.
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Let’s not go there!
newton on May 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
So, the party who claimed for decades to be looking out for women and blacks, have managed to alienate both women and blacks, in a year where a woman and a black are poised to be nominated for the highest office in the land.
That’s pretty funny.
And we are supposed to believe that one of these candidates will step forward and cure all the ills of the world and bring people together to live in peace?
fogw on May 20, 2008 at 10:59 AM
They think of it a mathematics…a negative multiplied by a negative is a positive.
You see, you think they are adding, but they are multiplying and dividing.
right2bright on May 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM
.
LOL, too funny, on more than one level, even.
Think_b4_speaking on May 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM
This is interesting: I’m suspecting the same liberal women who say they’re not going to vote for Obama in the fall are the same women who would have, in the words of some NOW type, given Bill Clinton… you know… just so he could keep abortion legal…
newton on May 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM
What other level is there, hysterically speaking?
Akzed on May 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM
There is a lot of racism & sexism in this race. But…
Far more people are voting for BO than against him because of race.
Far more people are voting for Hillary than against her because of race.
jgapinoy on May 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM
oops…
Hillary because of
racesex.jgapinoy on May 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I had a long conversation with several of my women friends about this over the weekend. Although we are all Republicans, all of us feel pretty badly about what happened to Hillary Clinton in this campaign. We all talked about how many women our age (50ish) can relate to a woman who has worked her head off for years, risen through the ranks just the way the men told her she needed to do, but when it came time for the really big promotion the company picked the young handsome man with no resume for the job. This has happened to countless women over the age of 45. I am dealing with it right now in my job, reporting to a younger man who has no idea of what I do or how much experience I have at it. My best friend is in the same situation, looking for a new job yet again because the man she works for is incompetent and abusive to all of his more talented subordinates.
It absolutely amazes us that the Democratic Party has done this to Hillary. Say what you want about her as a person or about her policy views, but she is clearly the most accomplished woman in public life in the United States, and she is about to lose the presidential nomination to a complete neophyte who nobody had even heard of just 4 years ago. It makes women wonder and makes a lot of us very angry: if Hillary Clinton cannot do this, what woman can? Won’t the men always find a way to keep the woman out of the job that really matters?
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM
What has clearly emerged from 40 years of leftist identity politics is a strict hierarchy of so-called victim groups and the exact opposite of MLK’s “content of their character rather than the color of their skin.”
I’m no fan of Geraldine Ferraro but what the Left has done to her is despicable, labeling her a racist after a career that demonstrated anything but. Typical of his passive-aggressive style, Obama sure didn’t go out of his way to counter those claims.
That some women will be put off is understandable. I am happy to welcome them into the McCain camp.
Gilda on May 20, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I note that I entered a wrong word again…
I meant the 2001 edition of Benito Mussolini
jerryofva on May 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Right on the money.
newton on May 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Mr. Hussein will get one happy American woman to vote for him…the old battleax Mrs. Hussein. That Mrs. Hussein is some happy American now that Mr. Hussein is headed for the White House.
Don’t panic. Hussein will suck up to the homosexual woman and feminazis between now and November. Chill!
saved on May 20, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Sweetie, welcome to our world:)
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Racism trumps sexism don’t ya know?
Oink on May 20, 2008 at 11:08 AM
Obama’s going to hire Patti Solis Doyle for the general? This is the same nitwit woman who wasted tens of millions of dollars getting Hillary back into the Senate in her last race, when she was basically running unopposed. The same woman who made a mess of Hillary’s presidential campaign to the point where she was forced out (but only after she had her candidate so far behind that a win was virtually impossible). Is this yet another example of Obama’s superior judgment? Hiring a woman who has repeatedly demonstrated that she is incompetent at her job? (Or is the fact that she’s a Hispanic woman what really matters here?).
As for Janet Napolitano . . . take her, Obama, please! I’m sure it will guarantee a win for you in McCain’s very red home state of Arizona — if you live in fantasyland, which Obama apparently does.
AZCoyote on May 20, 2008 at 11:09 AM
No she is not. She wants everybody to think that but she is a one term Senator and a former first lady. She has no experience suitable for the position she now seeks (neither does Obama for that matter).
There are plenty of women Governors and former governors who are far more “accomplished” than Hillary Clinton.
EJDolbow on May 20, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I’m aware of that. It was a play on the words themselves. And you can be sure that I didn’t mean an “Obama nation” either.
Big John on May 20, 2008 at 11:11 AM
I think the way the media has treated Hillary has been unfair, continually asking her to leave when the primary is not done. Also, Obama from the very beginning called her “divisive” and pounced on her high negatives. I wouldn’t at all attributed to sexism but there has been an eagerness to attack her.
terryannonline on May 20, 2008 at 11:12 AM
LOL
Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2008 at 11:12 AM
It will be seen as an even bigger slap at Hillary and all accomplished women if Obama picks a far less qualified woman than Hillary as his running mate. Janet Napolitano? Kathleen Sebelius? Please. They are not fit to shine Hillary Clinton’s pumps. How can a black man get away with such tokenism?
There really is nothing Obama can do to assuage women who are pissed off about this. The men who run his campaign (and please, folks, do notice that there is not a single woman in any high ranking position in Barack Obama’s campaign; that is NOT an accident and it has NOT gone unnoticed by a whole lot of women) are simply going to have to answer for it at the polls in November.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Don’t worry, hope is on the horizon
Theworldisnotenough on May 20, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Argh*
LOL, there chauvenism goes again. “On an emotional level, it’s easy to understand why females feel….” [fill in the condescending blank with chauvenistic empathy/Obama or compassion/Bush-McCain].
Hey, try “on an INTELLECTUAL LEVEL and on a PROFESSIONAL LEVEL” it is obvious that Hillary who has SOME experience was dropped by her party officials and the MSM in preference for a young, black male with NO experience. She could not be manipulated, but he is totally malleable. Now, GO FIGURE, and no “feelings” are required one way or the other in order to comprehend.
We’ve already noted that the non-black females behind Obama are very young, and the females regardless of color backing Hillary are mature. The females in Obama’s camp are inexperienced twits. The females in Hillary’s camp are veterans. Regardless of the outcome of THIS election, there’s hell to pay for dissing the experienced woman, particularly on the grounds of FEELINGS.
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Sarah Palin can beat Obama in basketball and bowling.
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:15 AM
Obama/Pelosi
Nancy LOVES being the most powerful woman in the world.
VP would be one chair closer to the Oval Office for her.
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM
I also noted a long time ago that the Democratic Party did this same thing three years ago when they passed over a far more talented and qualified Donna Brazile and handed the DNC chairmanship to the twit Howard Dean. I shudder to think how much better organized the Dems would be today if Brazile had been running the DNC. And there is no way she would have let her party hand its nomination to a neophyte like Barack Obama.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM
Rockmom:
I hope you are being sarcistic because both Janet Napolitano and Kathleen Sebelius have far more political, executive and electoral experience then Mrs. Clinton. One of the enduring myths of this campaign season is that HRC has the experience to be President. In reality Obama is more experienced in these areas then she is.
jerryofva on May 20, 2008 at 11:26 AM
You’re probably right.
But sexism, like any of their prejudices–age for instance, gets utilized and reshelved at the MSM discretion like a shell game. Now you see it. Now you don’t. It makes denial all the simpler.
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 11:27 AM
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 11:19 AM
Thank you! This is not about emotions at all, it is about the actual experience of millions of professional women in this country. I am very glad someone like Geralidine Ferraro had the nerve to talk about it.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:28 AM
In reality?
Hm.
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 11:29 AM
That’s the way the most effective racism and sexism attacks work. When it’s blatant, it gets identified as such. When it’s effective, it’s not blatant; it hits all around the core issue without ever saying, or even suggesting, that it’s racism or sexism.
NeighborhoodCatLady on May 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM
True, but only by accomplished women.
The good news is that the Democratic Party will have officially dismissed the majority of women. Let’s see what we can do to make them welcome on our side of the aisle.
Gilda on May 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:28 AM
Oddly, it sometimes truly takes a woman to say it like it is. My mother would not agree with leftist liberal politics, but would certainly have recognized Ferraro’s “intestinal fortitude” that would have matched her own. To hell with PC.
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I think Ferraro clearly has a bone to pick with Obama after he essentially labeled her a racist in his big race speech. She also probably feels that the Democrats have turned their back on her, Hillary and all other female Democrats that have done a lot for the party. Therefore, Ferraro will probably continue to make things difficult for Obama, for a while longer at least (that is, until the Dems shut her up). With all that being said, I think this mess shows which political party has the bigger problem with racism, sexism, and minorities in general.
Rick on May 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM
::shrug::
Democrats have succeeded in setting up a situation where such minor matters as qualifications, temperament, etc. are totally irrelevant; the only significant thing is group identity. They have built a “coalition” based on those groups, which only intersects at the very top level and contentiously there.
You have to vote for Obama because he’s black; no other considerations apply. You have to vote for Hillary because she’s female; nothing else matters. Unfortunately there’s only one Presidency, so in this case they’ve been forced by simple physics to rank their victim groups. In this case, and for this election cycle, “black” trumps “female”. If Clinton were the (presumptive) nominee, we’d be hearing the same thing from blacks and their supporters and apologists.
This is not to say the Buggins’ Turn system on the Republican side is significantly better or turns up a better candidate, but it does have the advantage of being a bit more orderly and less likely to generate resentment from the collision of imperatives.
Regards,
Ric
warlocketx on May 20, 2008 at 11:36 AM
My thought on the identity politics chickens coming home to roost?
Schadenfreude is a dish best served microwaved, and covered with Hershey’s syrup and whipped cream.
N. O'Brain on May 20, 2008 at 11:39 AM
The MSM only considers aging leftist ladies such as Gloria Steinem and the ladies from NOW to represent women. This is the view always expressed by the liberal ladies who dominate network news such as ultraliberals Robin Roberts, Katie Couric, Meredith Viera et al. All you have to is mention the name Margaret Thatcher to them. They sneer with contempt at the mention of the Iron Lady. Unlike their hero Hillary Clinton, Mrs. Thatcher made her own career and did not run on anybody else’s name. But because she was a friend of Ronald Reagan, she is not considered “authentic”. Just one more example of liberal insanity.
Larraby on May 20, 2008 at 11:40 AM
jerryofva:
No, I am not being sarcastic. People act like being a United States Senator and representing 25 million people is a day at the beach or some kind of BS job. It isn’t. I have a good friend who works for Sen. Clinton and I have also lobbied her in a previous job. She is a really, really good senator. She kept her nose to the grindstone in that job, just like the *men* told her to. She has been a workhorse, not a showhorse like her senior Senator Chuck Schumer. She has gotten a hell of a lot done for the people of New York. She is in her second term, not her first, and she did such a good job in her first term that the Republicans didn’t even try to field a serious candidate against her.
I don’t see how in the world you can say that Barack Obama is more qualified to be president. He won a joke of an election to the U.S. Senate after the Chicago Tribune illegally obtained and released Jack Ryan’s divorce records, and then immediately began running for President. he had a safe seat in the Illinois senate which is cntrolled by Democrats, and never had to run a serious campaign for anything, and never had to do anything to keep that seat. He voted “present” on everything that was controversial and never authored an important piece of legislation. Hillary ran a real campaign against a real opponent for a Senate seat that had been held by a Republican for more than a generation, in a state that had a Republican governor and a Republican majority in the state legislature. And she won handily, in a presidential year when the Republican won the presidency. Anyone who thinks that was easy is just wrong. I also have a very good friend who worked for Rick Lazio and I am very familiar with what went on in that campaign. Lazio’s people have a ton of respect for Sen. Clinton.
There are a few women governors in the U.S. and they do have more “executive” experience than Hillary. But none of them chose to run for President. I wonder why? Maybe because they knew that it was a suicide mission.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Ferraro need not pick Obama’s bones alone after he essentially identified EVERYONE who doesn’t vote for him as racist. That’s Obama stewing in his own pot. He can play the “rock soup” game with America and all the gullible ne’er do wells with the best of intentions can contribute and jump in with him.
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Honest to God, I am starting to think that McCain should really thnk seriously about naming Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman as his running mate. Whitman, in particular, would be an electrifying choice. She built one of the most important companies of the 21st century (for those who don’t know who she is, she was the founding CEO of eBay and probably the most important female CEO in the world, and recently retired), and left at the peak of her power. She was a top fundraiser and advisor for Mitt Romney and is now supporting McCain. I could see Democrats crapping their pants from coast to coast.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 11:50 AM
The feminist will vote for Barry. The are the most lefty females on earth. Why don’t they have any hair?
thatcher on May 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM
The “Iron My Shirt” incident was actually a Boston FM radio station stunt, so I’d be a little careful about putting that one on the list of Obama slights.
The other ones have some merit, until you stop and think what many of these same women allowed Bill Clinton to get away with during his eight years in office. Obama’s use of the term “sweetie” is a throwback to 30-35 years ago, and it’s fun to see the PC police start clubbing each other, but I don’t expect this outrage over his alleged sexism to last more than a day or so after Hillary’s concession speech.
Even though they consider Hillary as one of “theirs” (at least I think she’s one of those XX chromosome people), their anger at Obama is at least 95 percent situational — after all, these are the same times who decried poor Bob Packwood’s sexual harassment incidents in 1993 and forced him out of the Senate, even though he was a liberal Republican who had been supportive of their causes, but turned a blind eye to Bill’s far worse incidents in the ensuing years, because from 1992 to the summer of 2007, Bill and Hill were the political heroes of most of those on the left.
My guess is these same women driven by politics to turn Obama into a sexist pig will migrate over to him before the campaign is over, citing something like McCain allegedly using the c-word to his wife as justification for their change of heart (and if some of the more fanatical on the left are painting McCain as a closet wife-beater before Nov. 4 based on the c-word story, that also wouldn’t be a big surprise).
jon1979 on May 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Sarah Palin is the only choice. Submit or lose.
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Of course. Why would feminists go to the side of a pro-life candidate? They would never do that. I guess the only other option is stay home and not vote.
terryannonline on May 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Carly has those internal battles at HP to deal with, which would become fodder for the big media outlets to rehash over and over again, as far as making her a VP selection, while questions about Meg’s sexual preferences, especially in the wake of the California court ruling on gay marriages, would make her selection problematical for McCain (though nominating Whitman would make the left’s heads explode even worse than the fact that Mary Cheney wouldn’t denounce her dad in 2000 or Dick and Lynn wouldn’t denounce their daughter in 2004).
jon1979 on May 20, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Now that I think of it maybe Rudy would have made a good candidate!?!
terryannonline on May 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Sarah Palin is the only conservative left in American politics.
She is our Messiah. She is the one we are waiting for. Submit. Submit. Submit.
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Michelle will bust a move on his diminutive globes if he does.
The power behind the drone.
profitsbeard on May 20, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Sibelius would be an interesting choice. As an anti-life nominal Catholic, a la John Kerry, she will help Obama appeal to strident pro-choice women and nominal Catholics…who are already in the tank. However, the governor has been chastened by her Roman Catholic bishop for her high level intervention against life issues in Kansas and has been asked twice now not to present herself for reception of Communion. Her pro stance on abortion, dovetails nicely with Obama’s 100% NARAL endorsement and his vote to allow babies who miraculously survive late term abortions to die in the dark in utility rooms of hospitals. This will doubly alienate evangelicals and a more fervent kind of Roman Catholic.
marybel on May 20, 2008 at 12:16 PM
Sarah Palin just had a baby. I doubt she would even want to run for anything this November.
I like the idea of a woman CEO because it strengthens the ticket vis-a-vis the economic issues and puts the GOP on the high ground in terms of America as winner vs. America as loser. McCain is trying out this theme and wants to use it. I liked Mitt Romney (and still like him as VP) for those reasons – more for his CEO credentials than his one term as governor of Massachusetts. I agree that Fiorina has some baggage from her time at HP, but Whitman doesn’t. She puts California squarely in play, and would appeal to everyone who ever bought or sold anything on eBay, i.e. just about every household in America. I don’t know anything about her sexual orientation and I don’t care, though I suppose a lot of Republicans would. The fact that she was such a strong supporter of Mitt Romney might help in that regard.
I wish Elaine Chao had been born in the U.S. – she would be a wonderful VP candidate. But she was born in China.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 12:18 PM
BTW, there is already a “Women for McCain” organization going. It is headed by Judy Black, wife of Charlie Black and an accomplished woman in her own right.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 12:20 PM
That’s bordering on a sexist comment.
Sarah Palin has 5 kids. She is back at work serving her state. I’m sure she would heed the call if asked.
It’s ridiculous to offer up women CEOs. Please.
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM
“It absolutely amazes us that the Democratic Party has done this to Hillary. Say what you want about her as a person or about her policy views, but she is clearly the most accomplished woman in public life in the United States, and she is about to lose the presidential nomination to a complete neophyte who nobody had even heard of just 4 years ago. It makes women wonder and makes a lot of us very angry: if Hillary Clinton cannot do this, what woman can? Won’t the men always find a way to keep the woman out of the job that really matters?”
What a bunch of laughable BS. You have to be a shrill for Hillary. I have read all your posts. Who are you kidding?
Hillary is the worst example for any woman today. She has accomplished nothing on her own except for clinging to a government teat. Nothing and I mean nothing.
Her brief foray into the private sector was a complete failure. Every promotion she got at the Rose law firm was based on Bill’s political successes. Everything she touched while there led to scandals for which several people went to jail. Afterwards she busied herself as first lady to the Governor enabling her husband to have several affairs known to everyone in Arkansas. Anything to stay in the mansion.
Arkansans were glad to be done with her as she continued to latch onto Bill throughout his presidency where she further enabled him to carry on with his misogyny and BJ”s at the desk. Yes, I forgot it was all a right wing conspiracy. She accomplished nothing aside from that in her eight years of clinging to the teat mentioned. Anything to stay in the White House.
Now on to her Senate career, where after eight years, she has done nothing. Not one bill has her name despite be handed plumb seats on several committees. Why the seats? Because her husband was named Bill.
She has gotten and continues to deserve every “bitch slap” given her. I personally do not know a women left, right or center that give her any respect. She has set back women’s rights by years despite apologist such as yourself. There are thousands, no millions, of women nationwide in and out of politics that Hillary would be embarrassed to stand next to. The only reason you have not heard of them is they were not and would not have stayed married to Bill. She even had the temerity to drag her daughter through it all. Forgiveness for an affair is one thing but to be dragged and humiliated in the public square year in and year out, all the while making excuses, speaks to serious emotional problems. She needs help not sympathy.
Her and Bill deserve each other. Grifters the pair.
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 12:34 PM
So basically Ferraro is upset that Obama is being treated like a Democrat while Hillary gets the Republican treatment from the media. Dan Quayle is forever an idiot for taking the misspelling of potato(e) from the flash card, but Obama gets a pass for “57 states” and forgetting that Illinois and Kentucky share a border. W fails to immediately recall the primeminister of Pakistan and it is a HUGE story, Obama does not know about the Hanover site nuclear mess while campaigning in the area and you can hear a pin drop.
The best thing about this whole annoying campaign is watching my liberal relatives squirm when trying to continue to defend the utter fiction of an impartial media.
Brian The Adequate on May 20, 2008 at 12:35 PM
rockmom:
Hillary Clinton has done little in the Senate. Can you point to any bill of significance that she has sponsored? Attendance is not qualification. Of course she did question Gen Petraeus’s veracity in a Senate hearing. Is that the kind of experience that qualifies her for the Presidency? The only thing she represents in the Senate is her interests. Don’t you get it? It’s all about here not you.
Obama has been an elected official longer then Hillary Clinton and his qualifications are quite thin. My comparison was to show how poorly qualified HRC is for the office
Your idea that women shy away from high office because of alleged sexism is nonsense. I cannot see someone like the late Governor Ann Richards whining about sexism if she were in Clinton’s place. The Clintons and I dare say their devotees have a sense of entitlement and the sexism charge is merely an excuse for the failure of a poorly run campaign by an unqualified candidate. The fact that she has been defeated by an empty suite should tell you something.
jerryofva on May 20, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Why is that sexist? He did not say she shouldn’t run because she just had a child, but she probably doesn’t want to because she just had a child. Of course that is pure speculation on his part, but not sexist. I am not a woman, so I won’t comment on how any women might feel about involving themselves in a national political campaign just after giving birth. But can any women on here honestly say they would be ready to charge onto the political scene nationally with a new born at home? I am not being sexist either, I want opinions. Personally her just having a child would not disqualify as a good pick in my view.
NotCoach on May 20, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I would imagine being Governor of a state is more taxing than being VP of the US. She’s tough. She eats mooseburgers for goodness sakes.
faraway on May 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM
I think the possible shift as the result of this identity politics gap is small. Hillary beats Obama by 37% among women (66-29) and by 24% among men (58-34) in Kentucky, according to the latest Survey USA poll, available here: http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=12224d8c-e666-436d-a478-bfcb5f6aec2f
So you mean to tell me that the gap in the cross-tabs all reflects disgruntled Hillary voters who are going to vote for McCain in the general? No way.
That said, I will concede that in an election won by margins, even a 3% cross-over from women from Obama to McCain could be enough to shift the balance. And, I always love it when liberals are hoisted by their own politically correct petards.
Outlander on May 20, 2008 at 1:18 PM
test
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 1:19 PM
I don’t disagree with you at all on that. Hillary’s campaign started with a flawed strategy and may have been doomed anyway by the flypaper attraction of “Hope and Change” to activist Democratic prmary voters.
But the average female voter, even the most nonaverage highly accomplshed professional female, does not necessarily know that. What they see is a more accomplished woman losing to a less accomplished man. They see male commentators and reporters swooning over the man becuase he gives a nice speech and glossing over his lack of qualifications, while hammering the woman over a couple of gaffes, and micro-analyzing her clothes and her weight and her hairstyle. They see her spouse get trashed for spealing some truth about Obama, while his spouse is ignored despite her anti-American and elitists rants. They hear her called a bitch by every man around the office water cooler.
rockmom on May 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM
Very strange. Everything I try to post disappears except for testing like this. Has anyone ever had this happen?
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Well I hope all my attempts don’t all of a sudden show up.
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Oh, come on, what are they going to do, vote Republican?
Everybody knows Republicans hate women.
misterpeasea on May 20, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I’ll guess that you’re trying to post a link to CNN. Hot Air doesn’t like CNN.
misterpeasea on May 20, 2008 at 2:20 PM
It’s too weird. I wrote a passage pointing out Hillary’s complete failure and it would not post. It disappeared. The second time I wrote a new peice, copied it before I posted and same thing. When I pasted it several time word press page showed up and said I already had posted it. OK. Where did it go?
I think rockmom must be editing!
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Better check outside for black helicopters…
Rick on May 20, 2008 at 2:33 PM
:::note to self, having short hair: if ever on TV, wear a sweetheart neckline, big earrings and a smile::::
baldilocks on May 20, 2008 at 2:36 PM
I tried again. No luck with the copy and paste.
I’m looking out the window as I type now !
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 2:39 PM
Obama seems to like offending just about every bloc of voters that are not moonbats, communists, moslems, wackademics, blacks or the MSM.
Memo to Obama:
Paul Begula was right, sweetie.
You can not win with the Dukakis coalition.
BTW-Have you looked at the poll numbers from California recently? Real polls, not the MSM push polls. What happened to your +15% lead over McCain? At the rate the trends are going you will lose California-thanks in part to you offending the Jewish voters and Hispanic voters. Those are votes you will never get back no matter how “charming” you are and no matter what you say or do.
Nahanni on May 20, 2008 at 3:31 PM
I always kind of thought that a black man would be president before a woman ever would. I am a woman and I just do not think men feel comfortable with a woman in that job.
But what the hell do I know?
Terrye on May 20, 2008 at 3:34 PM
Geraldine who?
The Race Card on May 20, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I am a woman and I just do not think men feel comfortable with a woman in that job.
I suspect that the percentage of women who do not want a woman President is as high or higher than that for men.
Thatcher probably appealed more to men than women. That is because she never perceived herself as the heir apparent.
The Race Card on May 20, 2008 at 3:51 PM
Good point.
Hawkins1701 on May 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM
Here’s hoping the upcoming CA constitutional amendment referendum on the definition of marriage will bring out voters against Obama, as well.
I’m not overly optimistic on that front, and I still expect the state to go blue, but that ideological fight just made things more interesting out here in liberal loony-ville.
Hawkins1701 on May 20, 2008 at 4:38 PM
When I read that women resonate to Hillary’s being passed over for a young, handsome man with fewer credentials, I think to myself, the only way you could possibly feel that sympathy is by cutting out from your memory huge swaths of Hillary’s actual behavior.
Try to imagine Hillary from the point of view of the White House Travel Office. You’re an ordinary bloke with a job in the White House, your family is proud of you, and you’re doing a good job. You are told you’re FIRED because Mrs. Clinton wants to bring in a very rich man from Hollywood to run the office from now on.
You have to close your eyes to a lot of crap to weep a single tear over Hillary. She was “passed over” because of a pattern of cold blooded treatment of other human beings. Maybe feminists have some special power that allows them to overlook such things. We old fashioned folks don’t have such a power. And thank God we don’t.
jeff_from_mpls on May 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
The world has gone round another bend when it starts holding up Hillary as a rep for women. The nomination is not slipping from her grasp becuse she is a woman, its because of the kind of woman she is. Her life story, her self parody is the sniper story.
This is a woman whose only notable accomplishment is holding on to the government’s teat no matter what humiliating exercise it drags her through. All self respecting women would have let go years ago. No matter, might as well drag the daughter through it all also.
In the private sector she was a complete failure at the Rose law firm. From her billings, to her cases, everything she touched ended up in scandal–with several participants going to jail. Her token promotions were timed with her husband’s up the food chain of Arkansas politics. Despite his constant known affairs, she stayed playing commodities in her spare time again with a broker who went to jail afterwards. Anything to hang on to the mansion. Her supposed educational efforts over eight years took Arkansas from 49th to 50th place.
In Washington she repeated the same. Everything she touched ended in failure with more people going to jail. When the usual affairs started she blamed it on a vast right wing conspiracy. She even tried to destroy a young intern, thankfully the blue dress lives! But no worries, anything to hang in the White House.
To the Senate where she has accomplished nothing in eight years. Nary a bill in her name. The plumb seats she has on committees, those from her husband, the rainmaker. Even her original Senate campaign was based on having a more qualified dem congress woman pushed aside by her cronies. Ah the memories. Hillary has quite the list and we haven’t even gotten to the “congenital lying”. Another day perhaps. Meanwhile quite the standard bearer for today’s modern woman.
I don’t know any women, right, left or center that respect Hillary. As to forgiving her husband a couple of times, very understandable. But when it comes to enabling, that speaks of very serious emotional problems such that we have half way houses to help deal with this for the less fortunate. No self effacing woman wants to be near her except for shills.
Hillary deserves every “bitch slap” (to use today’s jargon) she gets. Her hand is still numb from having done it to so many others.
As for the Clinton’s they can’t be gone soon enough, grifters the pair.
patrick neid on May 20, 2008 at 4:52 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »