Grudge Match Hillary Voter Stories Begin
Jun 20th, 2011 | 16 responses
Official White House Photo by Pete Souza
WASHINGTON – Grudge match articles about alleged disgruntled Hillary supporters remain the fall back fighting position of the Right, a subject I know something about because of my role in the primaries. But it’s a very narrow story. Today it comes from Daily Caller, though it could have been from Drudge:
“After 2008 [Clinton voters] were basically told get over it, and they haven’t gotten over it,” Amy Siskind, president of the feminist advocacy group The New Agenda, told The Daily Caller.
Women, however, did vote for Obama in droves with the hope that he would tackle the issues important to them once in office. This has not been the case according to many Hillary Clinton supporters.
“Barack Obama wasn’t the women’s candidate in 2008 and he is not the women’s president midway through 2011,” Diane Mantouvalos, a 2008 Clinton supporter and co-founder of HireHeels.com (“a forum of power chics for Hillary”) noted.
According to Manatouvalos — who pointed to a March 2011 Bureau of Labor Statistics report that showed 90 percent of recovery jobs had gone to men in the prior 12 months as proof — Obama has hardly been the women-friendly executive so many thought he could be.
Indeed, while women did vote for Obama by a margin of 13 percentage points over the GOP in 2008, Democrats lost the women’s vote to Republicans by 1 percentage point during the 2010 elections, based on exit polling.
Pres. Obama wasn’t on the ballot in 2010, but the disastrously marketed health care bill was. So, the 2010 numbers were real, including that women split evenly, as did seniors. You’d think with the war on women the GOP is waging across this country there would be less of a worry in 2012. But today, economics trumps abortion rights advocate issues, with the feeling people have about the economy a lot more troublesome for Obama than the numbers.
It still doesn’t make the difference. In Pennsylvania right now, a state that loves both Clintons, but not so much Barack Obama, there is little evidence that with the current choices of Republicans can beat Obama yet and I believe won’t in PA. From Quinnipiac, June 15:
In possible presidential election matchups, President Obama tops Romney 47 – 40 percent and leads Santorum 49 – 38 percent. Independent voters back Obama, 41 – 37 percent over Romney and 46 – 35 percent over Santorum.
But that won’t keep sites from running the anti Obama Hillary voters story. Rehashing mythic tales is the stuff of election seasons. Here’s part of a comment I got today from a die hard Hillary supporter on Obama:
[...] So like the VAST majority of Hillary supporters, I will vote to re-elect Barack Obama because he will be clearly better, smarter and more deserving than whoever ends up as the GOP nominee. [...]
There’s the anecdotal, then there’s the practical, with Democrats usually coming home once they see the altervative.
Taylor Marsh is a Washington based political analyst, writer and commentator on national politics, foreign policy, and women in power. A veteran national politics writer, Taylor’s been writing on the web since 1996. She has reported from the White House, been profiled in the Washington Post, The New Republic, and has been seen on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, CNN, MSNBC, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera Arabic, as well as on radio across the dial and on satellite, including the BBC. Marsh lives in the Washington, D.C. area. This column is cross posted from her blog.
Photo: Official White House Photo by Pete Souza, with Pres. Obama walking around Buckingham Palace, circa May 2011.
16 Responses to “Grudge Match Hillary Voter Stories Begin”
IMO, the key issue is not the number of Democrats who might end up voting for an R, but the number of Democrats that actually go to the polls.
Based on reading the comments at Hullabaloo and FDL, I don’t see a lot of “being the good Democratic soldier” being discussed in 2012.
Its not only “Clinton women” who are disaffected with President Obama. Working class, middle age white men who supported Clinton in ‘08 still don’t get the Obama phenom. Speaking as one myself, I voted for President Obama but its less than 50-50 whether i would do so again. Bush tax cuts extended? The job situation/not investing in our infrastructure? Not standing up to the Republicans. Compromising with Republicans before negotiating. Allowing the Republicans to make him look foolish. Signing an extremely watered down Health Care Law. Too many reasons to list here as to why i’m leaning against voting for President Obama again. The one thing that would secure my vote and financial support is putting SOS Clinton on the ticket. I would campaign for, give money, and vote for Obama Clinton. The other thing that could secure my vote is being asked personally by SOS Clinton to vote for the President. Without either of those two things happening, for the first time since 1976, I very well may not vote for the Democratic nominee. Think i have no place else to go? I can easily go third party or write HILLARY CLINTON.
LOL Me thinks that those that do not vote FOR the O man will be voting AGAINST the GOP candidate since the GOP has decided social issues, oh yea and union busting which is really helping those working folks get better pay lol, are so very important to attack on the state level now that they have broad power there. They could have used that power to do sweeping things, or they could have used that power to win back the big chair in 2012. Cant have both and they have decided to give us another four years, thanks for that.
Also Clinton…really, the woman is decidedly to the right of Obama on almost all issues. Why would anyone short of a puppetering righty even act like she would have given the left their missing Xmas gifts? It is a fantasy. Obama is to the left of Bill, Hillary is to the right of both Bill and Barack. The difference between the Dems and GOP is the speed at which their knees hit the ground when the wealthy or big CEO’s give them marching orders and I really do not think voting for the team that falls to their knees when those people open the door is a valid option, nor does much of the electorate so far according to polls.
It would be nice to get an actual lefty in office but we will need to wait another 5-10 years or so…still hoping for Feingold to go after WI gov and then on to POTUS. Of course Hillary did spend around 6 years on WalMarts board so she would be really good for offshoring yet more jobs…if that is what you think would make life better than I will merely disagree…well I will snicker randomly as well.
How is a hyper-partisan like Taylor Marsh “moderate?” The pro-choice stance outlined in this very article is the antithesis of moderation. It attempts to fearmonger the female vote. And it is possible to be pro-life and moderate. What a turnoff this article was.
Good piece, Taylor, but I’m afraid I have to agree with casual. While I don’t see women who voted for Obama moving the R side, many women probably thought that maybe, in a year where over 500 pieces of state and federal anti-choice legislation has been proposed by Republican leadership, just maybe a so-called “liberal” president might have something to say about it? He does not. He’s not said anything about, let alone made any sort of push for protection of the rights of his largest constituent group. And women are, indeed, his largest contituent group. If the game is “get re-elected”, this guy’s making some pretty crappy plays.
It’s always interesting to see responses when I focus on the Republican Right’s obsession with the grudge match fantasy, which a few Clinton supporters indulge every time they’re asked. Too bad, really.
As for Democrats, but especially progressives, being disenchanted with Pres. Obama. I’ve shared many posts at TMV about that aspect, the latest on Friday. That’s quite different from handing the White House to people very well described by TheMagicalSkyFather, though I’d take issue with some of what he say’s about Sec. Clinton.
The funniest thing above is the absurd idea that Pres. Obama could be better served by someone other than V.P. Joe Biden, who has been invaluable to him. I just wish the President had listened to him on Afghanistan, Pakistan and especially Libya.
As for the very real war on women from the Right, I’d suggest people who doubt it do some homework. The offensive legislation being passed in states that treats women as if we can’t make our own decisions would never be put into law if men were the target.
At some point people are going to have to answer this question: Is freedom just for men?
How is a hyper-partisan like Taylor Marsh “moderate?”
Ah, my favorite new-commenter whine.
Is freedom just for men?
Has there ever been any doubt that there have always been those who wanted it that way?
roro80 says:
June 21, 2011 at 12:51 a.m.
This article is not about the very real disaffected Democrats, even if at Netroots Nation Obama still got an 80% approval, which mimics rank and file Dems who always come home, aka zombie voters.
This is about some mythical Hillary voter contingent that Republicans love to hoist as a threat to Obama.
The biggest threat to Obama is that he’s ruined his brand by having a Republican presidency in many arenas. That’s quite different from what Daily Caller is alleging.
I guess to me it doesn’t really have anything to do with Hillary Clinton, although most of the women I know who are pissed off at Obama (including me) did vote for her. The Republicans thinking they’ve got any insight into the minds of progressive women is silly and even mildly offensive, but my point was that I think there’s a real effect going on, even if the R’s are wrong to attribute it to some idiocy involving a grudge match. (Although, come to think of it, it is quite like them to think such a thing, instead of thinking that maybe it has something to do with actual policy and rights and all those things they think our silly ladybrainz can’t handle
We are evidently prone to catfights and grudges? Meow.)
America needs problem solvers — not martyrs. That goes for both the far left and far right. Anyone who acknowledges being part of either group might find it helpful to remember you are a minority. In my view, today’s political climate requires less rhetorical discussion from far left/right groups and more critical thought given to what can be accomplished. It’s about what we can get done to save our nation; we, meaning Americans.
We have 9% unemployment, 20% real unemployment and a 14 trillion dollar deficit. We have structural problems with home ownership, big banks, military spending, energy, agri business, health care and free trade. Taxes need to be raised and spending needs to be cut. Does anyone agree?
Having said that, I am not in favor of the right’s war on women. Not at all.
I doubt the “Republicans’ war on women” sophistry is going to drive the voting decisions of women who don’t use the government dole to pay their Planned Parenthood bills. I suspect they will be more influenced by hearing this simple question asked, “Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?”
I have been a lifelong Democrat but to be honest, I would rather use Willy Nelson’s hairbrush then to vote for this man. This CLEARLY is where experience mattered. And this will be the first time that I vote Republican. As I see it, it is the only way to stop the bleeding.
@KP, I could not have said it any better myself!
casual, like it or not, not all women are as wealthy as you are, and even most of us who are understand that the sometimes unfortunate accident that made us women shouldn’t mean that we are slaves to our own biology. That you have never contemplated such a thing is quite obvious and the hallmark of privilege.
As I stated earlier, wealthy white men like yourself trying to assign motives to progressive women is both silly and rather insulting. Of course, it’s a cute rhetorical trick to assert that anyone who disagrees with you is just looking for a handout from the “government dole”.