Update: apparently a journalistic institution more respected than my own has already covered this issue in depth. Thank you, New York Times, and thank you, Frank Rich, for highlighting a few more reasons why McCain is anti-feminist, why his alleged Clinton coup isn’t really a coup at all, and why the whole thing is a crock of spin… that I fell for. Barack’s lead in the polls only continues to widen. However, I still maintain that Hillary should say something about this issue.
-~-
McCain supporters are ecstatic: a high-level Clinton supporter, Debra Bartsoshevich, a delegate to the national convention, has defected and gone to openly supporting McCain. Her reasons, stated on a local newspaper’s site, give me pause. Apparently, the defection is partly about national security experience, but Bartoshevich can’t hide a hide that it’s a little bit about resentment too. Says Bartsoshevich,
No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her — that’s by Susan B. Anthony.
I am disappointed that Obama’s candidacy - and consequentially, should this trend to go too far, the American people – will pay the price for the media’s incompetent and often sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton. While Obama reaped the benefits therein, Obama never encouraged the media’s witch hunt against Clinton, and laying the blame at his feet is a clear case of misdirected rage.
If Bartsoshevich’s rage is poorly targeted, its result is also poorly planned: while the Democrats have “ignored” women in the sense that they failed to nominate one for the presidency, the Republicans started ignoring women back when it was cool, and they haven’t stopped since. Bartsoshevich has jumped from a barely-simmering fying pan, into a veritable bonfire of anti-feminism.
Hopefully, some of this will blow over. When Obama picks a vice president – God willing one with impeccable foreign credentials – Clinton defectors will no longer have that justification at their disposal, and will have to admit to the illogic of their sudden change of heart in McCain’s favor, or come back into the fold. I don’t blame some Clinton supporters for being upset with their candidate’s loss. We all knew there would be some unpleasantness afterwards. But we can’t let McCain tear us apart and waltz into Bush’s third term.
What we need now is a word from Clinton, and a joint appearance or three(-hundred). If Hillary Clinton is half the magnanimous stateswoman that she says she is – and that her supporters believe her to be – she’d be on the trail defending the Democrats going into November.
I really want to believe it isn’t as big as people say. It’s really discouraging to see so many blogs on wordpress being these anti obama pro hillary websites, all celebrating people voting for McCain.
http://donedems.com/
http://texasdarlin.wordpress.com/
http://obambi.wordpress.com/
They are frequently “featured” on the wordpress’ politics section too. I don’t understand why.
For a while I wanted Hillary to step out and start campaigning, but right now I think it’s best for her to stay quiet. Let people get over it before reminding them that she’s still around. Otherwise people may get riled up again.
Posted by oneiroi | June 16, 2008, 3:57 pmYou know, I’ve seen enough Obama “Bros before Hos” t-shirts and replays of SNL’s Tracy Morgan’s “Black is the new president bitch!” around the office to know that you have greatly underestimated the anti-female sentiment in the Democratic party.
If Obama’s camp wants to make nice with Clinton defectors , they can start by cleaning-up their own act.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 16, 2008, 5:05 pmEw. those are just as bad. I still don’t think that justifies voting for McCain though. Out of the frying etc etc., no?
Posted by Ames | June 16, 2008, 5:06 pmRight. A frontal lobe injury is the only forgivable reason one might vote for McCain.
Still – a ‘Hillary Nutcracker’ gift was left on my desk this morning by some anonymous Obama supporter. What am I supposed to think? Does the Obama-movement even want my vote?
Jeese …
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 16, 2008, 5:12 pmAs for the first, if the reason for switching the vote is concerns for which party is nicer to women, yes :-).
As to the second, that’s awful. Taunting, teasing, sexism, racism, etc., all bad. I’ve seen those gifts for sale on conservative websites, not linked to the Obama campaign, obviously. I’d be careful about drawing a direct line between a co-worker who sounds like an asshole and Obama’s personal political beliefs.
But I WOULD like Obama to call on supporters to put a stop to that, if it really is that big of a problem. I’m sorry you’re apparently up to your neck in jerks!!!
Posted by Ames | June 16, 2008, 5:19 pmI don’t know much about Obama’s personal political beliefs even though he’s my senator, but that’s not an uncommon complaint.
It could very well be that my asshole coworker has much in common with Obama. Who knows?
I mean, Obama has made a habit of employing anti-gay religious right activists to campaign for him in the south, and that’s just wrong especially from somebody making large claims of love and inclusion.
Obama seems to be a supporter of civil liberties. He talks as if everybody is welcome at his table, but holds fast to his stance on gay-marriage and he has yet to vote a strong yes on any women’s issues. In the Illinois state senate, voting ‘present’ was all the man could muster.
I am pleased about some of his votes. He voted against confirming John Roberts as Chief Justice for example.
On others I am not so happy. Obama was all for legislation to curb the predatory aspects of credit card lending but then in 2005 voted against capping credit card interest at 30%.
Was that a purely political move on his part, or is he actually in favor of usury?
I’m being a little facetious here, but you get my drift.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 16, 2008, 6:09 pmI know we’re sorta arguing on two different sections, but here’s another good listing on Obama. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm There are probably some lapses in his record, but the most important part I found on the link was this:
“Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard.”
Which I think is pretty good. Not perfect but good.
Posted by oneiroi | June 17, 2008, 10:19 amBelow are two quotes on the subject of gay marriage. Try to guess which quote is from Republican John McCain and which is from Democrat Barack Obama.
1.) “I’m a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
2.) “I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that, but I do believe in preserving the sanctity of the union between man and woman.”
Now tell me again why Clinton supporters shouldn’t vote for McCain!
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 17, 2008, 11:31 amDear God man! If you don’t like Obama’s rhetoric on this issue, surely you don’t like McCain’s either!! He’s the same but worse! He says “leave it to the states” and then campaigns for his state to ban it! Has Obama done that? He may not be the BEST on this issue but he’s a damn sight better!
Also, think of the Court! McCain will appoint justices who believe in “originalism” – which means, no legal protection for women or gays – and you’re actually considering voting for him? That vote, if it became a trend, would risk setting your agenda – my agenda! – back at least twenty years!
Posted by Ames | June 17, 2008, 11:45 amNow I kinda think you’re joking Lunch. Since Hillary and Barack had the same stances and the same rating from the HRC, 89%. As opposed to McCain’s 33%.
But okay not to vote for McCain because he is:
1. Against a bill allowing protection for discrimination on sexual orientation and gender identity.
2. Does not support protection against hate crimes.
3. Believes in don’t ask don’t tell.
4. Supported an Arizona state amendment that would ban gay marriages and any benefits.
5. Doesn’t care about civil unions or equal rights for gay couples. Completely left to states.
Posted by oneiroi | June 17, 2008, 11:56 amYes all good points.
But for an angrier Hillary person (there are thousands), can you see how easily one could cast a revenge vote for McCain?
Imagine the internal dialoguing going on, “Well shit!” a middle-aged wage earning divorced female person with many gay coworkers might say, “Looks like both candidates merely tolerate gays and are too in love with the idea of traditional marriage. Why bother voting at all?”
Why haven’t I heard any outrage from either of you at how similar the two quotes sounded? Don’t you hate the fact that Obama and McCain are parroting one another’s stupid prejudices?
I thought Obama was supposed to be BETTER than that.
[Chill Ames. I would never vote for McCain :')]
Obama people NEED to consider these overlapping quotes. They NEED come to terms with the fact that an 89% rating from HRC might not give enough distance from McCain’s rhetoric.
Maybe Obama should stop investing in the prejudices of the petite bourgeoisie and aim for a 99% rating instead.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 17, 2008, 12:30 pmanother site that gets A LOT of play on the main wordpress dashboard is
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/
apparently, she is one of the writers who defected from dailykos … again, she is on the dashboard as the “hawt news” post quite frequently.
i don’t want to minimize the disappointment of hillary supporters like her, but i — as a white, suburban, overly-educated mother — cannot understand this phenomenon of, well, “sour grapes” …
(oops, i just said “sour grapes” after also saying i didn’t want to minimize their feelings …)
Posted by didionsmommy | June 17, 2008, 12:30 pmYes, for those of us who are not lucky enough to be overly-educated suburban moms, loosing Hillary Clinton was a terrible thing.
Hillary Clinton was more capable of governing with an understanding of the circumstances of people who don’t live the kind of life she lives. She dignified herself by standing-up for those of us with everything to offer this country, but who are stuck in minimum wage-earning towns or experiencing the Iraq war directly. In turn, we too felt very dignified and hopeful.
We were hopeful because her health care plan would have benefited us. It was very explicit about affordability with premium caps based, in part, on income.
McCain’s plan (if you can even call it one) would leave the bulk of us non-suburban-mom-types as poorly insured as we are right now. An Obama-type plan would create the problem of healthy people not signing up until they develop medical problems, thereby raising premiums for everyone else.
And guess what kinds of people in the “everyone else” category already pay the highest premiums? Yup you guessed it – the non-suburban-mom-types.
We’re the ones who miss-out on attending Obama events because we can’t afford gas for the car or we don’t have a car in the first place.
We’re the ones who can’t afford ‘spring break,’ and don’t own iPods.
We are the people who join the Navy to pay for college because there’s nobody in our immediate family with the means to co-sign a basic student loan. Hillary Clinton’s commitment to tuition reform may have changed this, but oh well … I guess this does not count as “The Hope and Change We can Believe In.”
So you know what? “Sour Grapes” does not even begin to cover the feeling of knowing you’ve been completely ignored and fucked over in the political process … again … and from the Democratic Party no less.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 17, 2008, 1:44 pmLunchAdmin, thanks for posting that. It takes a lot of guts to talk about yourself so candidly, and I appreciate you saying something that we needed to hear, and saying it well.
What you’re talking about are some of the most important concerns for this election, but I guess what I don’t get is how Hillary manages to reflect those concerns, but Obama doesn’t. I guess in the end we don’t yet have enough substance to talk so enthusiastically about – health care, etc. – and I think Obama may be a more macro-level candidate than Hillary, who distinctly focuses on micro-issues. Obama talks about change and redefining the spirit of America, but what it sounds like you need is a little help on the things that are easier to define: health care and education. I dearly hope that comes out soon, and I think it will, and I think you’ll like it and I hope that it will be something to not only win over yourself and other people with your concerns, but to actually *DO* something about those concerns.
I do think Obama’s got a better chance of meeting those concerns than McCain, so I hope you still vote for Obama :-). But since those themes haven’t been developed as much in his campaign – I won’t say abandoned, yet – I see how it’s easy to feel left behind. I hope soon you won’t feel that way though.
Also, I think there’s a distinction between elitism (being intelligent and using it to make a difference) and Elitism (feeling entitled to a position of power and luxury), and while I think Obama and Clinton are both elitist-with-a-small-e, it stuns me how Obama comes off as Elitist-with-a-capital-E. It’s like Collin’s talking about on one of the other threads: that label is so elusive that it hits you before you even see it coming, and misses you when you deserve it dearly. So strange.
Posted by Ames | June 17, 2008, 3:16 pmIt’s sour grapes.
I still haven’t heard a good response to how people think it was unfair. Someone had to win. It happens every 4 years. So I wouldn’t say ignored or fucked over. Every time someone’s candidate doesn’t win.
If you’re referring to FL and MI, everyone agreed to the Michigan and Florida decision well before it became politically advantageous to count them. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=3134 They all played by the same rules as established by the DNC.
To change the decision mid race would have been party suicide because it would be seen as the party officials and insiders flipping the election. You can’t change the rules mid-race just because you want someone else to win. And it would have delegitimized her win.
So as I’ve been commenting to those people, I’m sorry your candidate of choice didn’t win, but it’s time to come together on the ideologies of the party and start to fix things in this country.
Posted by oneiroi | June 17, 2008, 3:28 pmmy intent, in describing myself as suburban, etc., was to draw a direct parallel between me and the owner of the aforementioned “riverdaughter” blog. she is an educated, suburban mother.
***
i am sorry, lunch, that you feel so betrayed by the democratic party, but i can absolutely assure you that you do not have a monopoly on hardship. i can tell you about the three jobs i held, working my way through college, or i could show you our bank account, or i could discuss the atrophying local economy where i live …
instead, i will discuss health care. my husband and i are very much in favor of universal health care. in fact, in deciding to support obama months ago, we had several involved discussions about our disappointments with his plan. ultimately, we determined universal health care — of even a less significant overhaul of the current system — will likely not happen in the next administration and that there are other issues requiring immediate attention, issues obama appears better equipped to address.
we, proverbially, picked our battle, deciding that hillary could not win over mccain (which, incidentally, would further force the healthcare debate into the ethereal category of “the academic”) … she lost her ability to win years ago when she voted to authorize the iraq war, when she voted to pass the patriot act (twice), when she played it as-safe-as-safe-can-be in ALL of her years in the senate. we feared that all mccain would have to do against hillary is play the “experience” card, and he would win.
obama, though, is another story. (he cosponsored a bill to establish more controls over the reauthorized patriot act.) granted, he was not in the senate at the time of the iraq war vote and when the patriot act was first instituted. but without a record mccain can exploit on the experience front, i don’t think the g.o.p. quite has a plan on how to handle an obama ticket.
bottom line: i want a democrat in the white house. period. interestingly, you and i share a lot of the same problems, a lot of the same concerns.
but we differ in one significant way: if hillary were the democratic party’s candidate for president, i would NOT FOR ONE MILLISECOND consider not fully supporting her. my misgivings about her electability aside, she would have my vote, without question.
Posted by didionsmommy | June 17, 2008, 3:28 pmI agree didionsmommy, I would have voted immediately for Hillary even if I did not prefer her. I know that the issues I care about, national health care, Iraq, securing civil liberties, stopping torture, …will only be done with a Democrat in office. We can’t afford to go in the direction we’re going any longer.
Anger wouldn’t be worth giving that up.
Posted by oneiroi | June 17, 2008, 3:44 pmHi didionsmommy,
From where I sit, the only reason Universal Health Care “will likely not happen” is because people like you voted against the only candidate with a proven plan to make it a reality.
The idea that Senator Clinton cannot win over Senator McCain is manifest by your vote and nothing more.
Going further, you have not cited any reasonable argument that Hillary “lost her ability to win years ago when she voted to authorize the Iraq war.” If that were true, the people of New York would not have bothered to re-elect her in 2006.
And what about the fact the Hillary Clinton has voted with a majority of her Democratic colleagues 97.0% of the time? What I mean is that she along with Kerry, Kennedy, Boxer, Reid, and Obama all voted to renew the Patriot Act in 2006.
Obama wasn’t there to vote for the Patriot Act the first time, but his 2006 vote tells me there’s a good chance he would have.
You mention that there are other issues requiring more attention that go beyond the immediacy of health care – issues Obama appears better equipped to address. Were you planning on listing a few of these issues?
I’m keen to know, because your reasons for voting against Hillary Clinton just don’t hold water so far.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 17, 2008, 4:20 pmThere are no guarantees it would have passed before or won’t pass now.
I am also willing to bet that Hillary Clinton will be an integral part in the actual implementing and ironing out details of the national health care plan when that time comes.
Posted by oneiroi | June 17, 2008, 4:50 pmYes I’m sure they’ll allow her to sit in the back of the class room with her hands folded – just as long as she agrees to give full details on her superior health care plan and remain silent when other people take credit for it.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 17, 2008, 5:14 pmThey’re not children who are pouting in the corner about not winning or trying to scheme in order to get on top.
They’ll handle it like adults because they have the same goals in mind. No one wins if the health care plans fail.
Posted by oneiroi | June 17, 2008, 6:01 pm“No one wins if the health care plans fail.” Yes thank you for the words of wisdom Bill Cosby.
And thanks also for the backhanded insult. I know it’s just your way of dealing with the fact that I made a goddamn rock-solid point for which you have no retort.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 17, 2008, 6:48 pmSaying a baseless argument is not a solid point. It was your opinion.
You’re letting emotions cloud things, in my opinion. They’ve treated each other with professional respect most of the time, and the rest I chalk it up to politics. Which again is why I think they act like adults. I don’t see any evidence that people would act the way you mentioned.
Let alone because stealing her idea wouldn’t work since her plan is well documented. But okay, call me Cosby.
Posted by oneiroi | June 17, 2008, 7:18 pmYou just don’t get it. Too bad.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 18, 2008, 10:41 amNot get what? What a secret threat Obama hypothetically is? How Hillary was our savior? How fighting about Hillary and Obama is helpful at this stage?
Posted by oneiroi | June 18, 2008, 11:01 am“What a secret threat Obama hypothetically is?”
Uh – YEAH.
& not hypothetically.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 18, 2008, 12:04 pmAlright.
But…it’s mostly based on assumptions and opinions since he hasn’t been president yet.
Posted by oneiroi | June 18, 2008, 12:21 pmAssumptions and opinions – my ass!
Your replies lack angst concerning the wellbeing of others. I suppose if you had as much to loose on this as I do, you’d show a little more concern.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 18, 2008, 12:46 pmI disagree.
The only thing I’m upset about is people willing to throw away values for anger. McCain won’t do the things you say you support and are concerned for. But I’ve already tried talking about that.
Posted by oneiroi | June 18, 2008, 1:17 pmFor the last freaking time – despite Obama’s threadbare record, I would never vote for McCain.
What is sad here is that Obama most likely won’t come through on much either.
It’s not about values vs. anger. (Really that’s so cute tho – like a Boy Scout merit badge or something.)
It’s about electing a candidate who is 100% invested in American people living higher quality lives – something you obviously don’t worry much about.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 18, 2008, 2:44 pmI do worry about it, I just disagree on your opinion on the man.
I believe in the party and I don’t believe in the theory that once he gets in he’ll disavow his stances. Which is why I called it hypothetical.
We just disagree, I don’t really need the mockery though. I’m doing my best to keep anger out of it and talk about how I see the issues and the importance of getting a Democrat in office.
I’m sorry if you feel that I’m not being civil.
Posted by oneiroi | June 18, 2008, 3:08 pmI don’t think you are failing at civility. I do think you suffer from an unwillingness to look at Obama using the same lens used to examen Clinton.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 25, 2008, 7:41 pmWell, wasn’t that the point I was making for you?
Sorry to keep referencing back but you were trying to diss Obama for saying something that Hillary said too?
My point is not that Hillary is bad, but that they/you are more concerned with criticizing Barack, smearing him, instead of the issues. Because Hillary is forgiven/overlooked for the same things. That’s a different lens.
I mean, personally I don’t think you have validity in your claim, first because I never went to blogs purposefully to poke holes in her stances or say she is insincere. Second, I would fully support her and her candidacy because I believe in the things she outlined as her goals. I have no desire to dig up people she knows and use it against her or criticze her record for a stray vote. It doesn’t seem useful to me. But you would be right to say maybe I should.
And right now I’m fully willing to criticize Obama for supporting FISA. That’s a huge disappointment for me.
Posted by oneiroi | June 26, 2008, 8:46 am“you are more concerned with criticizing Barack, smearing him, instead of the issues.”
NO. I am concerned with criticizing Barack BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES.
His vote for this FISA bill freed his detractors having to dig up shady people he once did business with in Chicago.
To make their point – all they need to do is point to the big turd he left on Habeas. That is, if they’re allowed to point this out.
I do hope you enjoy your moment of being “fully willing to criticize Obama” because it won’t be safe to do after this FISA Legislation goes through.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 26, 2008, 1:13 pmI always think the digging up people thing is the funniest part of the ex-Clinton supporters. Since the Clinton’s have more than their share of questionable supporters. Different lens say what?
And yes for you personally (and not a lot of people) it’s mostly about the issues. But you’re willing to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt and not Obama. As you admitted. Because, c’mon Hillary doesn’t have a perfect record. But it’s only “life and death” when Obama does it.
What do you mean about habeas? Habeas has to deal with the Guantanamo and not the wiretapping. Are you referencing something else I don’t know about?
Yeah, I’m surprised all of the top democrats are trying to push this through. All they did was make a more convoluted bill that said the same thing and Pelosi and Reid are pushing it. Obama should still be fighting this with Dodd and Leahy, so the more criticism over it the better.
Posted by oneiroi | June 26, 2008, 3:41 pmOh. My. God.
This FISA bill’s expansion of warrantless eavesdropping powers and its removal of safeguards against abuses of those powers guarantees that the information gleaned in wiretapping will continue to be used – secretly and without probable cause – to detain people at Guantanamo.
It also guarantees that telecom companies complicit in providing the “evidence” used to lock people away will never have to defend their actions in the matter.
It’s the Fourth Amendment that protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures and the writ of habeas corpus enforces it.
Or used to anyway …
So you know what?
This is a “life and death” moment and Obama’s vote to participate in this senseless de-evolution of our free society is indefensible.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 26, 2008, 9:00 pmShe hasn’t participated in anything similar? She wasn’t complicit in the patriot act?
Different lens. Only freak out about Obama.
I just didn’t make the same jump with the wiretapping and Guantanamo. Since they’re different issues with different votes and different regulations. Yes they can be used in conjunction, but I was thinking more in terms of civil liberties and privacy rather than…having an american citizen being kidnapped to Guantanamo because of the bill.
I know what the bill means. I know what the 4th amendment and habeas corpus. Thanks though. We’re not arguing on if the bill is bad or not. We agree.
Yay for the recent court decision on habeas though.
Posted by oneiroi | June 26, 2008, 11:43 pmYes yes – Hillary voted for the Patriot Act back when Obama wasn’t in the Senate – but when we did get him in there he voted for it in 2006.
You are free to call Hillary Clinton unprincipled if you want, but she didn’t sell herself as a new messiah. She didn’t promise not to vote for the Patriot Act before doing so.
Obama on the other hand, with his “Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream” has begged us to hold him to a higher standard.
Are the folks who made him our “chosen one” going to bother with making sure their guy lives up to that high standard?
In October, Obama said he would support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies.
His campaign people are SO SURE that voters will stay loyal. Even though Obama is NOW voting to give The Decider the last cookie in the jar, there is the pathetic and inevitable argument that voting for him is still somewhat better than voting for McCain.
In such a short time we’ve gone from “Hope and Change” guy, to “At least he’s not THAT guy.”
But how do we know Obama is not that guy? He sure votes like him.
And yes – yay for the recent Habeas decision in the court.
Posted by Lunch Admin. | June 27, 2008, 12:57 pm