Sarah Palin Thinks Barack Obama Will Regret Not Picking Hillary Clinton September 12, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, feminism, gender, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, media bias, Sarah Palin, sexism, Uncategorized, women's vote.
1 comment so far
ABC News; by Russell Goldman; September 12, 2008
John McCain’s Vice Presidential Candidate Talks With Charles Gibson in Exclusive Interview
Gov. Sarah Palin says Sen. Barack Obama just might regret not picking Sen. Hillary Clinton as his vice presidential running mate.
“I think he’s regretting not picking her now, I do. What, what determination, and grit, and even grace through some tough shots that were fired her way — she handled those well,” the Alaska governor told Charles Gibson in her third and final exclusive interview with ABC News.
Palin, 44, took the mantle of the campaign’s only female contender after Obama defeated Clinton for their party’s nomination and picked Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., as his Democratic running mate over Clinton and others.
Palin has praised Clinton on the campaign trail, and when she was first introduced as Sen. John McCain’s running mate last month in Ohio.
“The women of America aren’t finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all,” Palin said as she accepted McCain’s invitation to join the 2008 Republican ticket, referring to a line made famous in Clinton’s concession to Obama.
Palin also cited the performance of Rep. Geraldine Ferraro, a Democrat who ran as Walter Mondale’s vice presidential running mate.
In her June speech ending her historic campaign, Clinton invoked the suffragists who fought for women’s right to vote and civil rights leaders who fought on behalf of equal rights for African-Americans as she insisted, “The path will be a little easier next time … that has always been the history of progress.
“Although we weren’t able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling, thanks to you it’s got about 18 million cracks in it and the light is shining through like never before,” she said.
Clinton has been reluctant to criticize Palin on the campaign trail so far.
“We should all be proud of Gov. Sarah Palin’s historic nomination, and I congratulate her and Sen. McCain. While their policies would take America in the wrong direction, Gov. Palin will add an important new voice to the debate,” said Clinton in a written statement as Palin took the national stage.
In her debut on the party’s ticket, Palin emphasized her blue collar roots, describing herself as “just your average hockey mom in Alaska” and her husband as a member of a steelworkers union.
And some female supporters of Hillary Clinton have been slow to accept Obama as the Democratic nominee.
Though many liberal women say they would not vote for Palin, whose positions on issues such as abortion rights and stem cell research contrast sharply with those of Clinton, the McCain-Palin ticket has pulled into a dead heat with Obama-Biden in recent national polls.
Some of McCain’s biggest gains in the most recent ABC News/Washington Post poll are among white women, a group to which Palin has notable appeal: Sixty-seven percent view her favorably, and 58 percent say her selection makes them more confident in McCain’s decision-making.
Among those with children, Palin does better yet. And enthusiasm for McCain among his female supporters has soared.
White women have moved from 50-42 percent in Obama’s favor before the conventions to 53-41 percent for McCain now, a 20-point shift that’s one of the single biggest post-convention changes in voter preferences.
In light of such success, Palin’s nod to Clinton may not be entirely unexpected.
Could Clinton have Palin-proofed Dems? September 10, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, feminism, gender, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, media bias, Sarah Palin, sexism, Uncategorized, women's vote.
If Barack Obama loses in November, he can look back on August 23, 2008 as the day he lost the race. That’s the day he snubbed Hillary Clinton and picked Joe Biden as his running mate. If he had picked Hillary Clinton as VP, there would be no Sarah Palin right now helping John McCain surge in the polls, garnering enthusiastic support from a formerly dejected conservative base, stealing away female voters, and attracting all the media attention right now.
POLITICO; by Glenn Thrush & Martin Kady II; September 10, 2008
“Every woman in America knows what Barack Obama did to Hillary Clinton: He looked at her and thought, ‘There’s no way I’m doing that,’” said Miller. “If Hillary was on the ticket, he’d be in a much better position to win women voters.”
Sarah Palin’s presence — coupled with Clinton’s absence — may be altering one of the great verities of American politics: that women voters overwhelmingly favor Democrats.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week showed white women swinging hard against the Democratic ticket. Obama left Denver with an 8-point lead among white women; by the time John McCain pulled out of St. Paul, Minn., with Palin at his side, he had taken a 12-point lead.
Former Clinton strategist and pollster Mark Penn on Tuesday said that it’s too soon to know where women will wind up in November, and he declined to engage in any “woulda, coulda, shoulda” speculation about how things might be different if Clinton were on the Democratic ticket.
But another former Clinton adviser, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the “Obama people have got to be kicking themselves” for not putting choosing Clinton as his No. 2.
Julia Piscitelli of the American University’s Women and Politics Institute agreed.
“I don’t think Palin would be seeing these kind of gains if Hillary was on the ticket,” she said. “When Obama picked Biden, it gave Republicans an opening, and they are taking full advantage of it. … The question is: How long will it last?”
The answer, some Democrats say, is not long.
“I don’t think this is a real swing [in the polls] until it’s been a week, said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), one of Obama’s busiest female surrogates. “We’ll need to see whether Sarah Palin is willing to answer questions. … No one will be a stronger advocate for Barack Obama and Joe Biden than Hillary Clinton.”
Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln (D-Ark.) also sounded the Palin-will-wilt-in-the-spotlight theme.
“Sarah Palin delivered a great speech, but we haven’t heard anything else about what she’s going to do,” Lincoln said. “American women are smart, they’re bright and this election isn’t just about Sarah Palin. This is about what they want to do for the country.”
The Obama campaign has denied that it has a serious problem with female voters.
On Monday, campaign manager David Plouffe told a Washington Post reporter, “Your poll is wrong,” adding, “We certainly are not seeing any movement like that. Polls, time to time, particularly on the demographic stuff, can have some pretty wild swings.”
That view won support from two unlikely sources Tuesday: Penn and a Republican senator who backs the McCain-Palin ticket.
Penn said that women are going to be “the absolute swing vote in this campaign, and it’s not clear which direction they are going to go in.
“I don’t think it’s a Hillary backlash we’re seeing,” he added. “With Palin on the ticket, we’re going to be seeing this thing swing back and forth.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), who has had a strained relationship with her state’s governor, downplayed Palin’s power. “I find it difficult to believe that many of the Hillary supporters are going to come over just because of Sarah Palin,” Murkowski said. “It should be about strength of positions” and policy.
But Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who is locked in a tough race of her own, says several women — former Clinton supporters — have come up to her in Maine to say Palin gives them a reason to back McCain.
“I have never seen such excitement in the Republican Party as we’re seeing in response to Sarah Palin,” Collins said. “I’ve had a lot of Democrats and independent women in Maine who say they’re happy to see a woman on the ticket. Many of them saw an Obama-Clinton ticket as unbeatable. … That is significant and remarkable.”
Quinnipiac University Polling Institute Assistant Director Peter A. Brown said the Obama campaign is fooling itself if it discounts the importance of the problem. “This isn’t about Hillary; it’s about Obama’s problem with white women voters,” he said. “Hillary won about 10 million votes from women voters in the Democratic primaries — there are 52 million women voting in the general election.”
Clinton has said she’ll hit the road for Obama, but her team says she refuses to be an anti-Palin “attack dog.” Further complicating matters for Obama, Hillaryland fundraiser Susie Tompkins Buell is leading a group that will fight media sexism against the Alaska governor.
Nevermind the Palin Naysayers September 3, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, feminism, gender, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, media bias, Sarah Palin, sexism, Uncategorized, women's vote.
San Diego Union-Tribune; by Ruben Navarrette; September 03, 2008
SAN DIEGO — Never mind the naysayers and inside-the-Beltway snobs who mock John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. This was a brilliant choice.
Sure, it’s a risk. But as Palin’s defenders point out, no less a risk than asking the country to take a chance at the top of the ticket on a first-term senator from Illinois who doesn’t have much to show in legislative accomplishments or foreign policy expertise.
I’ve defended Barack Obama by urging that we think outside the box and ask whether the world with which McCain is so familiar hasn’t changed over the last 40 years to the point where it’s no longer familiar to the rest of us. Now it’s fair to raise the same concern about the individual whom Palin will square off against, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, who entered the Senate when Palin was 8.
Still, not all is well in McCainland. The news that Palin’s unmarried 17-year-old daughter, Bristol, is pregnant has raised questions about whether this choice was properly vetted and whether the selection was made in haste. That should be investigated since it reflects on McCain’s judgment.
But that has nothing to do with Sarah Palin. So let’s stop piling on, especially since all too many pundits and politicos have little to offer but snarky criticisms. And let’s give McCain credit for a daring choice that offers more to the Republican Party and the country than many realize at the moment.
This was McCain using his opponent’s strength against him. Coming on the heels of a Democratic convention that was all about diversity, change and making history, it offered an alternative to Americans who are ready to shake up Washington but who don’t think that Obama is the one to do the shaking. It also showed that neither party is wedded to the old and tired image of four white males vying to lead the country.
Besides, those who know Palin best — her Alaska constituents — tell reporters they like her, trust her and find her easy to relate to, which happen to be the same personal qualities that many Americans say they find lacking in the Democratic nominee. And anyone who thinks those qualities aren’t important in a presidential candidate probably doesn’t understand why Bill Clinton beat Bob Dole in 1996 and George W. Bush beat John Kerry in 2004.
Lastly, picking Palin gave the McCain campaign a much-needed infusion of excitement, and donors have responded by contributing more than $10 million since the selection was announced. In fact, the McCain campaign reported recently that it raised $47 million in August, the largest monthly fundraising total to date. For a campaign that was growing stale, this was welcome news indeed. No wonder McCain quipped to Fox News about Palin, “I wish I’d taken her a month ago.”
But what really gave away that this was a good choice was the reaction from the Democrats and their pals in the media. When they weren’t criticizing Palin, they were painting her as inexperienced. Needless to say, these are not folks who worry about the best interests of the Republican Party. It’s fair to say that if McCain’s VP choice had gone over well in these quarters, then it would have been time for the GOP to worry.
Perhaps liberals are afraid that a McCain-Palin ticket might be easy to underestimate but difficult to beat. It’s likely Democrats would have preferred to run against a ticket that included a more predictable running mate such as former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney or a pro-choice candidate who would have alienated the Republican base such as former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Or maybe the left is simply bothered by the fact that, with such a bold move, McCain seems to have cheated Barack Obama and Joe Biden out of a large post-convention bounce.
Republicans have lots of reasons to be enthused about this choice, and Democrats lots of reasons to resent it. But in the end, no matter how this election turns out, it’s the country that stands to benefit the most from John McCain’s historic decision to launch Sarah Palin onto the national stage.
A Brilliant Trap Makes Dems The Male Chauvinists August 31, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, feminism, gender, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Sarah Palin, sexism, Uncategorized, vice president, women's vote.
New York Post; by Kirsten Powers; August 30, 2008
SHE’S just a beauty queen.
She’s another Dan Quayle.
Following McCain’s announcement of Palin – the first female to be put on a GOP ticket for the White House, and only the second in US history – the Obama campaign skipped the niceties and blasted her as the “former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience.” She’s also a governor of Alaska (my home state), the first woman in that office and the youngest elected in state history. She has an 80-plus percent approval rating. She has turned the state upside down with her reformist zeal and has made enemies of the Republican establishment.
And she can talk energy policy, one of the biggest issues facing this country.
Is she a gamble? Definitely. But so is Barack Obama, who has himself dismissed experience as a prerequisite for leadership, despite his spot atop the Democratic ticket.
At this point, Palin is so unknown, there’s no way to make a clear judgment about her. But listening to Obama supporters take to the airwaves to shriek with indignation about her lack of experience is just a little too rich. Where were they when Obama, two years into the Senate, announced his candidacy for president?
One Obama supporter and political operative blogged, “In picking an unknown, untested half-a-term governor from Alaska . . . John McCain is following in a long line of reckless men who have rolled the dice for a beauty queen.”
Do we really have to do this again?
No sooner was Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the race, and a new woman is in the cross hairs.
On CNN, during a discussion about whether it was appropriate for Palin to accept this job when she has a baby, Dana Bash pointed out it’s unlikely anyone would ask this of a male candidate.
I can’t help wondering if this is a trap. The McCain camp watched and learned as Obama supporters offended Hillary supporters by their treatment of her. The McCainiacs had to know that this group is incapable of behaving, that Palin would bring out their worst instincts.
One top Republican said to me: “Just wait until she is debating Joe Biden and he starts attacking or condescending to her. Hillary voters are going to say, ‘Oh yeah, I remember this.’ “
The McCain camp has already made clear it stands at the ready to scoop up these voters. Yesterday, Palin proudly acknowledged her historic selection, the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton and the woman who paved the way for her, Geraldine Ferraro.
Ferraro told me she’s excited for another woman to be on a presidential ticket. She sees Palin as a risky choice – but also dismissed the idea that she’s unqualified.
And she rejected the idea that all the so-called “Hillary voters” would be repelled by Palin’s staunch anti-abortion views. These voters know the Senate will have a veto-proof Democratic majority, so that lessens the potency of that issue.
Howard Wolfson, Hillary’s top strategist, said “it won’t help with most Hillary voters, but it could help with some.”
“Some” of 18 million people is what the McCain camp is after.
The other potential trap is luring the Obama campaign onto the “experience” field. The early conventional wisdom says McCain’s pick was boneheaded because it takes the experience issue off the table. But it seems that it has done the opposite: The importance of experience is the topic of the day.
The more Democrats complain about this, the more Republicans can turn it on them and say, “If you are so concerned about the amount of experience of the vice president, what about the top of your ticket?”
Obama’s argument thus far has been that experience isn’t what counts; it’s judgment. By attacking the Republican woman relentlessly on this issue, Democrats are undermining their own man.
Hillary Clinton delivers in Denver August 27, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, feminism, gender, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain, media bias, sexism, Uncategorized, women's vote.
Hillary Clinton Intro Video
Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Democratic National Convention
Hillary Clinton gave the speech of her life tonight at the Democratic National Convention. She genuinely and forcefully endorsed Barack Obama. I hope this will shut up annoying Obama supporters and idiotic pro-Obama media pundits especially on CNN and MSNBC who kept putting the burden on HIllary Clinton to convince her supporters to come toward Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton has done her part and now it’s all on Barack Obama. At the end of the day, it is up to the actual candidate to convince voters to support him. So if Obama blows this election, he will not be able to blame Hillary Clinton.
As I watched the speech, it reinforced how proud I was and am to support Hillary Clinton. She definitely connected with working people as a fighter for them in a way Obama has up to this point unable to do. The longer I heard her speak, the more it made me sort of sad. It reminded me again that she is definitely the best candidate for President. It also made me sad to know that I will forced to vote for someone who is the second best candidate on Election Day. Ironically, I think for most Hillary Clinton supporters like myself, the more she shined brightly as she spoke tonight, the more you wanted her to be President. You saw the many Clinton delegates crying as she delivered her magnificent speech. I think for many of her supporters, they have a heart connection to her that will not be broken through speeches about policy. I think even her speech will not be enough to convince many of them to vote for Obama.
After the speech, CNN interviewed an African American female Hillary Clinton delegate named Anne Price-Mills from the state of Washington who was shedding a lake of tears as she shared how sad she was to realize that HIllary Clinton would not be the nominee. As she continually choked up, she said that even though she wouldn’t vote for McCain, Obama has two months to show her why she should vote for him. She said if that doesn’t happen, this would be the first time in her life that she would not vote. That is probably a common sentiment among many Hillary Clinton supporters. It is now up to Obama to convince them to vote for him and that will not be an easy task, especially after he arrogantly snubbed her from the VP spot. Thank you Hillary Clinton for being an inspiration to so many!
It’s No Longer Just About Hillary August 19, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Chris Matthews, Democratic Party, feminism, gender, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, media bias, MSNBC, sexism, Uncategorized, women's vote.
add a comment
Real Clear Politics; by Froma Harrop; August 19, 2008
After hearing her name placed in nomination at the Democrats’ convention next week, Hillary Clinton will no doubt urge her followers to support Barack Obama. What good that gesture will do for the Obama candidacy remains to be seen. Clinton has already made it several times, but a new Pew Research Center poll shows that 28 percent of her primary voters do not intend to vote for Obama, a number virtually unchanged from June.
Of special concern are women, particularly older ones, whom in the past could be counted on to vote for whatever Democrat was running for president. Many remain scandalized by the sexist attacks on Clinton during the recent campaign. A stubborn 18 percent of Clinton’s female voters vow to back McCain, according to a poll for Lifetime television networks. Another 6 percent plan to support neither major-party candidate.
Perhaps Clinton does not possess the magic wand to move her troops. The storyline goes that many women disappointed by Clinton’s loss or angry at the nasty campaign just needed time “to heal.” Once Hillary gave them the nudge, they’d get with the program.
Thing is, it’s no longer about Hillary for many of them. I sat in on a group of high-powered Clinton supporters gathering in New York last week to create a nonpartisan group called The New Agenda. There was little discussion of the current campaign.
The New Agenda’s agenda is to look out for women’s political interests where the Democratic Party and old-line feminist organizations had failed. The attendees reserved special fury for the Democratic National Committee and its passivity before the misogynistic carnival. One of their specifics is getting MSNBC jester Chris Matthews fired — and if he intends to run for the Senate from Pennsylvania, to end that idea.
Every member has her own plans for November, including for a few, voting for Obama. Co-founder Amy Siskind, a former Wall Street exec and Clinton fundraiser, told me, “I won’t vote for Obama, but I’m not sure what I’ll do.” Cynthia Ruccia, a Democratic activist from Columbus, Ohio, who twice ran against Republican John Kasich, is supporting McCain — and organizing other Democrats in her swing state to do likewise.
The McCain camp has noticed. Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard and McCain’s adviser, met with Siskind in New York. She flew to Columbus to confer with Ruccia, Nancy Hopkins, another New Agenda founder, and 75 other miffed Democratic women. (Hopkins is the MIT biologist who famously protested a suggestion by then-Harvard University President Lawrence Summers that boys might be innately better at science than girls.)
DNC chairman Howard Dean has called Ruccia twice. “He was just waking up to the thought that women around the country were upset over the treatment of Hillary,” she told me. Ruccia tends to doubt that putting Clinton’s name to a roll-call vote will mollify many of the female holdouts. “The train left the station a long time ago,” she said.
The New Agenda wants to become a women’s-voice alternative for the National Organization for Women and NARAL, which they see as moribund and appendages of the Democratic leadership. Members note that when rapper Ludacris sang a pro-Obama ballad calling Hillary “an irrelevant b-,” the president of NOW didn’t get out of bed to complain.
For many of these women, whatever nice things Clinton says about Obama in Denver won’t matter much. They have decided that they can live with McCain, and they’re already inoculated against the crude anatomical references that left-wing bloggers will send their way. (There’s not one they haven’t heard.) Hillary can’t do much to change their feelings — even if she wanted to.
Is Hillary Due for a Comeback? February 16, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Latino vote, women's vote, working class vote.
add a comment
There has been some scoffing at Clinton pollster Mark Penn’s memo issued yesterday arguing that Hillary Clinton can still win more delegates than Barack Obama. The memo contains a certain amount of campaign boilerplate:
Hillary is the only candidate who can deliver the economic change voters want—the only candidate with a real plan and a record of fighting for health care, housing, job creation and protecting Social Security.
But, hey, he’s paid (and very well) to say things like this. And there’s independent polling data that seem to support his argument.
Start with Pennsylvania, which votes April 22. Quinnipiac today released a poll showing Clinton leading Obama there 52 to 36 percent. Whites back Clinton 58 to 31; blacks back Obama 71 to 10. Since Pennsylvania’s population is only 10 percent black, that accounts for Clinton’s big lead.
Then look at Ohio, which votes March 4. Here Quinnipiac shows Clinton ahead 55 to 34 percent. Whites back Clinton 64 to 28; blacks back Obama 64 to 17. Ohio’s population is 11 percent black. Quinnipiac’s Peter Brown (whom veterans of the campaign trail will remember as a first-rate reporter) explains why Clinton seems to be doing so well in Ohio (and, by implication, demographically similar Pennsylvania) after losing eight straight contests:
Ohio is as good a demographic fit for Sen. Clinton as she will find. It is blue-collar America, with a smaller percentage of both Democrats with college educations and African-Americans than in many other states where Sen. Obama has carried the day. If Clinton can’t win the primary there, it is very difficult to see how she stops Obama.
Quinnipiac’s result is similar to two other recent Ohio polls. Rasmussen has Clinton ahead 51 to 37 percent; SurveyUSA has her ahead 56 to 39 percent. The only Ohio poll taken in January, by the Columbus Dispatch, showed Clinton ahead of Obama 42 to 19 percent. Obama has apparently made gains since then. But so has Clinton.
In the other big state that votes March 4, Texas, it seems that there has been no public poll since last April(!). Texas’s population is 12 percent black and 32 percent Hispanic, so we can expect the Democratic primary electorate there to be about 20 percent black and perhaps 15 to 20 percent Hispanic.
One primary Penn did not stress in his memo was Wisconsin. The Clinton campaign line has been that the post-Super Tuesday February contests are all dismal ground for their candidates. But the Wisconsin polling data tell a different story. Scott Rasmussen shows Obama leading Clinton by only 47 to 43 percent. This is similar to Strategic Vision’s Wisconsin survey, which shows Obama ahead 45 to 41 percent. Wisconsin’s population is 6 percent black and 3 percent Hispanic.
How can Clinton be doing so much better here than she did in Maryland and Virginia? One reason is that there are smaller percentages of black voters in these states. Another, probably more important, reason is that the white Democratic primary voters are different. In Maryland and Virginia, they tended to be quite upscale and on the young side, especially in the big suburban counties outside Washington, D.C. In Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, they’re much more downscale. At a time when Clinton and Obama are essentially tied in national polls, it stands to reason that if Obama is ahead in states like Maryland and Virginia, Clinton will be ahead in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.
Texas is another, interesting story. Texas doesn’t have party registration, and, historically, huge numbers of white voters participated in the state’s Democratic presidential primary—1.3 million in 1980, 1.8 million in 1988, 1.5 million in 1992. That number plunged downward to 786,000 in 2000 and 839,000 in 2004, even though the state’s population grew from 14 million in 1980 to 22 million in 2004. The obvious conclusion: An awful lot of white Texans began voting in the Republican primary again. This year’s Texas Democratic primary could turn out to be largely a battle of minorities, with blacks voting heavily for Obama and Latinos, as in most other states so far, heavily for Clinton. In this battle Obama will undoubtedly have an organizational advantage, both because his campaign— unlike hers— has done organizational work in the post-Super Tuesday states and because of the strength of pre-existing black turnout organizations. As for white Democratic primary voters, upscale Texans still tend to be heavily Republican, though a little less so than 15 or 20 years ago—very much contrary to the pattern in Northern Virginia and Montgomery County, Md. White downscale voters in southern states have generally gone for Clinton, but not by overwhelming margins. Of the four states we’ve looked at here, Texas appears the most problematic for Clinton, though she’s on far stronger ground there than in the already concluded post-Super Tuesday contests.
Observations about the intersection of race and gender in the Clinton/Obama battle February 14, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, Barack Obama, Chris Matthews, feminism, gender, race, racism, women's vote.
add a comment
Just talking to people, listening to the radio, and going on the blogs, you can see how positions are hardening between the Clinton and Obama supporters as this protracted nomination goes along. The eventual nominee is going to spend an enormous amount of time healing the rifts that are forming now. It’s been widely reported that there’s a sizeable group of Obama supporters who say they wouldn’t vote fo Clinton if she were to become the nominee. Now there are signs that show that there’s a sizeable group of Clinton supporters who may not vote for Obama if he were to become the nominee. Talking to other Clinton supporters and going in the world of the blogosphere, there is definitely a feeling among Clinton supporters that she has gotten a raw deal especially by the media. I was listening to Air America (a left wing radio network) and Clinton supporters were calling in saying they were hesitant in whether they would vote for Obama. Most of these were women feeling like they’ve gotten shafted by the mainstream media and others. As women, they feel angry that Hillary Clinton as a woman is getting blasted by the media and the political world. I have read the same thing on blogs. The sentiment seems like that they feel like sexism is more subtle and is more permissible than racism. Today, Ed Rendell, the governor was blasted as being racist for suggesting that some white voters wouldn’t vote for Barack Obama because he’s black. Many Clinton supporters I talk to are angry that whenever there is criticism of Barack Obama, they are considered racist. However, when people criticize Hillary Clinton, than that’s fair game. When people suggest that Obama did not have enough substance, some Obama supporters and people in the media saw that as racist. I understand where that sentiment comes from especially with the horrific racial history our nation has had where African Americans have been continually marginalized. What is the line of between being racist/sexist and bringing up legitimate criticism of a candidate?
Some women feel angry because they feel sexism is considered acceptable in today’s discourse. It is their perception that bashing a woman, in this case Hillary Clinton, has been deemed acceptable and this has been the pattern of patriarchal oppression and approval of gender discrimination. I listened to Ed Schultz, a liberal talk show host on Air America who is an Obama supporter, defend the remarks of David Schuster who said the Clinton campaign “pimped” out Chelsea Clinton and also defend the remarks of Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC’s “Hardball,” who said Hillary Clinton career is based on Monica Lewinsky and no merit. It shocked me that a so called liberal was fine with defending sexist comments. It just showed that even white liberal men can be sexist too. I hear men talking openly about not supporting a woman as president. It is sort of acceptable for a person to say that, especially if you say your beliefs stem from biblical principles or from growing up in a culture with traditional or patriarchal values. I have yet to hear anyone publicly say he or she wouldn’t vote for an African American for president and I have a feeling that person would be rightuflly lambasted if they did so. It has just made me think about this intersection of race and gender in our society and how it plays out.
However, what hasn’t been covered by the media much is how historic many women see Hillary Clinton’s candidacy. Much has been made of how African Americans are so proud of Obama’s ascendacy and rightly so. With the racist history of this nation and the suffering faced by African Americans, this is something that should be celebrated. However, the media has not talked about the pride many women feel about the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. This nation also has a very shameful record of discrimination against women. For many women, they didn’t think this day would come and feel a strong sense of connection with Hillary Clinton as African Americans do with Barack Obama. Just talking to some female Clinton supporters and listening to them on the radio and reading the blogs, there is a feeling that they are having their opportunity to have a female president taken away from them. This is what many African Americans felt in South Carolina with comments made my Bill Clinton. Even though I am an Asian American, I think I always felt like race trumped gender. However, that was easy for me to say a man. There’s definitely a history of internal oppression inside movements for racial gender equality. Many women of color have felt left out of the gains of feminist movement and feel as if white women in the movement don’t really care about their needs. The leadership of the movement has been mostly white college educated affluent women. In movements for racial equality, there are ways that women have been oppressed and relegated to a subservient role. The leaders of many of these civil rights organizations tend to be men and may minimize the needs of women in these movements. So there’s ways that oppressed peoples, both people of color and women internalize their power to oppress people within their communities. Over a hundred years ago, Frederick Douglas and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were debating the preeminence of racial or gender equality.
I think it would be sad to see two oppressed groups, African Americans and women feel like they are in competition with each other and that there would be some bitterness that lingers even after the nominee is selected. In a time that people should be ecstatic of the historical moment this is with an African American and a woman running for the White House, we are mired in bitterness, conflict, and infighting. I hope in the end, that we don’t have a debate about whether race trumps gender or if gender trumps race. I hope that we can celebrate the historic nature of each of these respective candidacies.
It’s been a blessing to be able to listen to perspectives of so many women as I meet other supporters of Hillary Clinton. It was interesting at my caucus to be joined together with mostly women at our small, but loyal band of Clinton supporters in a room dominated by Obama supporters. As a man, I may be oblivious and dismissive to the issues of patriarchal oppression and in the ways I as a man can be complicit in that. I’ve always realized that sexism and discrimination against women is an inherent problem in our nation. However, it’s one thing to know it and it’s another to listen to women (the oppressed themselves) talk about it. Seeing women feel pride in seeing another woman aspire to be president is pretty awesome. Someday, I would love to see an Asian American ascend to such heights. But even as I wait for that, I can celebrate and revel, as should all Americans regardless of race and gender, in the empowerment and pride that African Americans and women are feeling right now with the historic candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Exit polls show that Latinos, Asian Americans, and women give Hillary Clinton a decisive victory in California over Barack Obama February 6, 2008Posted by koreanpower999 in 2008 Elections, 80-20, Asian American, Asian Americans for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, feminism, gender, gender gap, Hillary Clinton, Latino vote, race, Super Tuesday, Uncategorized, women's vote.
If you look at the MSNBC exit polls from the California Democratic primary, it shows a sharp racial and gender divide.
It’s apparent that there was a huge gender gap as women came out in large numbers for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Clinton beat Obama among women 59%-34%. White women were heavily tilted toward Hillary Clinton (55%-34%) whereas white men heavily favored Barack Obama (52%-34%).
This is what CNN said about how Hillary Clinton won California:
“(CNN) – Sen. Hillary Clinton can thank Latino and Asian voters for her projected victory in California. Early exit polls indicate that Sen. Barack Obama carried white voters in California because of his overwhelming support among white men. White women, as in other states, more often supported Clinton. Black voters overwhelmingly favored Obama but Asian voters, whose numbers are comparable to blacks, went overwhelmingly for Clinton. The deciding factor may have been Latinos, who make up roughly 30 percent of California’s Democratic vote. They went for Clinton by a two-to-one margin.”
If you look at the white vote, it was surprisingly even with Clinton with 45% and Obama with 42%. As expected though, the black vote went overwhelmingly for Obama 78% to 19%. However, unlike in southern states where the black vote made up 45%-55% of the total Democratic primary electorate, the black vote only made up 6% of the total Democratic primary electorate in California. What made the difference for Clinton’s big victory in California was that she crushed Obama with the Latino vote which she won handily 69% to 29%. Latinos made up 29% of the Democratic primary electorate in California. The other group that put Clinton over the top was Asian Americans. Asian Americans made up 8% of the Democratic primary electorate in California and Clinton clobbered Obama among Asian American voters by an overwhelming margin of 75% to 23%. (I wonder how much 80-20′s endorsement of Hillary Clinton in the California Democratic primary influenced Clinton’s 52% advantage over Obama in the Asian American vote?)