An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

How to approach the +50yo female Clinton Supporters Count Too voters

Earlier today, someone asked me “How is someone supposed to convince [Hillary Clinton] voters to side with him [Obama] when they vote for his opponent knowing she will not win and claim they will not support him once he wins the nomination as they are predicting?”

Here’s my response:

You can’t convince the Clinton Supporters Count Too kind of voter to “side with” Obama. That’s not going to happen.

So what can you do?

1. You let them vent.
2. You try to discern the common issues important to them and to you (or the other opponent).
3. You offer as much as you can to help them see how the opponent is not only not an opponent, but in fact is an ally.
4. How do you do that? With facts.

This is all about building trust. People who already feel screwed, legitimately or not, don’t want to feel like they’re setting themselves up just to be screwed again. You read this kind of fear over and over in the rants from the Clinton Supporters Count Too people.

If not having this group “side” with the opponent is in fact such a huge problem, then the person finding it to be a huge problem has just as much of an obligation to solve it. It is pure and utter nonsense in terms of negotiating and mediating and getting this particular crowd of voters to see the choice you want them to make as something they can do if the side that sees them as a problem is completely unwilling to step forward.

Should it be that way? Who knows. But it’s not about the way it should be or has always been. It’s about the way you want it to be and what you have to do to get there.

5. So you build the trust, but in this case, it has to be organic. That means, these voters have to really feel it. If they don’t feel it, they won’t change their allegiance.

I agree with the legions of Obama-committed that Hillary Clinton has to send the signal that she is going to trust Barack Obama. But part of the deep-seated piece for this particular cohort of voters – primarily that 50 year old and older female demographic – is that they’ve lived their lives saying sisters are going to do it for themselves. So part of them is saying, what do we need men for? We’ll find our own way.

And so they really, honestly in their heart believe and are okay with letting men screw themselves.

Therefore, I say to those who see this attitude as a complete barrier to the success of the opponent (Obama), you don’t win them over by telling them that they need you and must come to you because that’s the way it’s always been. They will laugh in your face. They are the generation that’s lived to prove that they can do it on their own or will die trying.

Rather, you have to find what matters to them: their daughters and granddaughters, as well as their sons and grandsons.

This is why I am dedicated to efforts like the White House Project that helps me work on the challenge to be sure that there are more than enough women always ready and able to run and to win.

6. Then, you can’t break the trust. The issues that are in common and the methods for addressing them have to be followed through on, at all levels. From now through and after the general election.

It’s actually really very simple: strategists and advisors figure out how to target and microtarget all the time.

This situation should be viewed as exactly the same thing, but the tactics that will be used to address this group? Those may have to be as unprecedented as anything else we’ve seen in the last 17 months.

  • vwcat
    You are right about Clinton needing to send a signal. With the pro Hillary blogs spewing so much paranoid and nasty garbage that keeps her supporters stirred up they will not listen to anyone but, Hillary.
    Someone said many feel like a man stole it away from her.
    Now, I am a 50 yr old white woman who supports Obama. I do not understand the anger and this emotional need for a woman to be president to feel worthy or validated. I feel you should deal with doing that yourself. You cannot live through other people and Hillary as president is not going to change anything in their lives that any other democrat would.
    But, I understand they feel that somehow Hillary being president will make them feel legit or validated. So be it.
    And they feel Obama is the enemy for daring to challenge her. They resent him for winning.
    They do not accept that Hillary was responsible for blowing a sure thing by bad management and problems with her own campaign. And to suggest it they feel you are attacking them personally.
    I just ignore them and let them vent for now. Sometimes I shake my head in wonder at what they say and plot to do - like protest at an Obama event, ect., but, hoping they get it out of their system
  • I am with you 100%. I am almost 46, I feel very much like you do except that I've been very unenthusiastic about both candidates (I would have voted for Biden, Dodd or Richardson if they'd still been on the ballot in Ohio).

    I don't feel the way this group of voters feels, but, like you - I get what it is to them. I choose to work the "where's the opportunity" angle, even though I do have concerns about making sure that we don't drop the ball re: the media and sexism we've seen.
  • jmacmanus
    I am 65, white, masters degree, woman.

    I was impressed with Obama's speeches. Perhaps I might have been swayed if I hadn't read his books.

    There is something chilling about the line from "Dreams from my Father" that if things turned ugly he would stand with the muslims. Another line that really bothered me was that he gained comfort from holding grievance against his mothers race.

    He speaks in public of having transcended race and that we should do so. His campaign would have us trust him. There are too many contradictions evident from Obama's speeches and writings to evoke any sort of trust from me.
  • Loviatar
    Jill,

    I'm a 41 year old African American man who is a supporter of Hillary Clinton who will not be voting for Obama. Unlike the "Holly In Cincinnati" crowd I'm not going to vote for the crazy man in the other party due to some neo-con, pro Israel fantasy, I'm just going to stay home along with my money and my mom (she happens to agree with me).

    .
    Why?

    .
    1) His inexperience (and not in the way you think); its really my inexperience with him, I don't know him, I've heard and read alot about him, but I just don't know him. As I've said before I know what I would have gotten from a President Hillary Clinton (both good and bad), but I'm not sure what I will get from a President Barack Obama, I think I know what I'll get, but I'm not sure.

    And after 8 years of George Bush's ineptitude and malfeasance I just want someone who while I might not agree with them 100% of the time and they may not be a "politics changer" they're at least competent and reasonably honest. This election is too important for it to be decided by thoughts like my wish is that the president will do..., my hope is that the president will do... and I think I know what the president will do about... it needs to be about thoughts like I know what the president will do. Remember, the last time we elected a President based upon wishes, hopes and I think I knows, we got George Bush, ask any non 28 percenter how well that turned out.

    2) Because of the intense misogyny and hatred shown by some of the Obama supporters (I'm a big believer in you scratch a misogynist and you'll find a racist and vise-a-versa).
  • Lynx
    Jill, a question for you, as a female Clinton supporter. I'm a female Obama supporter, of the younger generation, and it's my personal impression that Clinton's defeat is still a triumph for women, though not the 100% triumph a win might have been.

    Let me explain. Blacks vote almost unanimously for Obama. Though I'm happy for it, because he's my candidate, I'm sad that they still feel the need to be tribal, to vote as a bloc, to vote out of loyalty for their own race. It's a sign that we have not advanced to a color-blind society (not that I didn't know that), that race is still very much a factor.

    Now take Clinton. Though women, especially older women, trend more towards her, it's much more varied. Women do NOT vote with their ovaries, they vote with their ideas, mostly. To me this is a GOOD sign, a sign that our gender no longer defines us, a sign that the world we live in allows us to not be a tribe, to be blind to gender.

    I understand the passion of the older women, who have had to fight a long hard battle to come this far, and would like to see a great big symbolic barrier fall. I and all young women have a lot to thank this generation for, but I'm saddened to think that this very passion may prevent them from realizing that their battle has enabled a generation of women to grow up in a world much more gender-blind than it is race-blind.
    I'm not saying sexism is dead, it's not. I'm not even saying that sexism has been totally absent from the campaign (though I don't think that's what beat Clinton), but I think that some women may be overestimating the extent to which gender mattered and ignoring or not noticing how this campaign actually reflects the advances in gender equality, at least in the minds of young women.
    What do you think?
  • lfaunt
    I am 55, black, with a masters degree, woman.

    I think the only thing you don't trust in him is his blackness. You would come up with any excuse as will most racially motivated whites to make yourself feel okay not to vote for a black man.

    You probably found fault with MLK and was angry when he was given a holiday.
  • jmacmanus
    I absolutely do not agree that the only thing I don't trust in him is his blackness. And I deeply resent your insinuation of racism.

    As for Obama, his consciousness in his book was all about his blackness - which probably stands to reason because of his searching for his identity and his desire to find and respect his father. His conclusions, however, that he would like to get rid of his whiteness and his white blood are something else.

    Lashing out at me or others who think like me is certainly not the path to unity. I am not racist. I would have voted for Colin Powell in a heartbeat because I think he is a truly great man. I also felt that way about MLK.

    I also am not looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama. I will probably vote for him if he wins the nomination - because I think that we must elect a democrat this year - the country must turn around from this destructive path that it is on.

    My post earlier addressed the issue of trust. I don't trust Obama - I have been uncomfortable with the people that he has surrounding him. His background and history in Chicago have caused me pause. Interestingly enough, though, I don't know that I fully trust any of the politicians that are running.

    I have at times admired McCain for his willingness to buck the establishment and to cross party lines. But in the final analysis, he is a Republican - and he will keep us going in the wrong direction like we have been for the past 8 years.

    I will vote for the Democratic candidate.
  • Jmacmanus: I think a lot people echo what you've said. When I think about the instances you cite and the instances that concern me (and again, I want to emphasize, Clinton and Obama were neck and neck for being the low candidate on my totem pole, starting in 1/07 when I first started writing about the campaign) relate to both the candidates, i get tripped up on political expediency. How do we ever really know their motivation?

    So maybe that makes me nothing more than a garden variety cynic. I think I probably am, to be honest! But I feel that way about pretty much all political candidates - because they are political candidates, not because of anything else, least of all immutable traits like race or gender.

    I don't think anyone should begrudge you your reservations, and that's what bothers me a lot about the rhetoric from so many factions, pro-Clinton and pro-Obama. It's like people forget that one of the few things that is really ours, is our vote.

    Which is why, when one camp is trying to figure out a way into the other camp's mindset, they need to tread carefully, thoroughly and respectfully. AND take no for an answer.

    I just hate the nastiness - that's what bothers me the most, I think.
  • Loviatar: You make a very good case for folks who will prefer to not vote in November. I completely understand what you are describing. I forced myself to vote in the primary, and I mean that in the worst way. I really hated going to vote - isn't that awful? Because I have serious problems with Clinton and Obama. But I just couldn't "not" vote - I couldn't stay home.

    Maybe I need to re-think that, but again, I don't begrudge you your feelings. I can completely imagine feeling that way myself.

    (Oh - and I'm glad you won't be voting for McCain! :) Had to add that before I forgot!)

    My hope of hopes is that people who feel that they just will not be able to vote for the nominee dig in more to learn more and examine the ramifications of not voting, not only on the outcome of the election, but that outcomes impact on all of us.

    I don't know the answers to that - who does? But I think, as someone who clearly engages and thinks and considers, you should consider that too, yes?
  • Lynx, everything you state is really well-stated.

    I agree with pretty much everything Arianna Huffington wrote yesterday which echoes much of what you've written here. I'm part of a the White House PRoject - as I've mentioned - which focuses on making certain that it's not a question of now or never but rather, how many - because we will continue to field women candidates in every race conceiveable - and they will be good and worthy and win.

    However, where I diverge from what you've written is in my opinion, just my opinion, about the extent to which gender mattered. I believe the extent to which gender has mattered was underestimated at th outset - not overestimated. Clinton should have put it out there the way Obama did about race and declared that the attitude that sexism is "unpleasant but it happens" is okay - a kind of toughing it through - is not acceptable.

    However, I have had conversations with women, primarily younger but not all, who agree with your position. And in fact I'm working on pulling together a women's forum in my area sometime within the next several months I hope to specifically look at this issue.

    Let me suggest that you look at this post on feministing.com today, they have a clip from CNN posted in which a GOP analyst, male, tries to suggest that calling women bitches in the context in which he believes they are assertive and aggressive the way he saw Clinton in the campaign is acceptable.

    He is trying to lower the bar for what women candidates can be called when they get feisty and he wants to get "bitch" to be an accepted term for describing that behavior.

    I completely disagree with this, but it is another example of just how "it's unpleasant but it happens" plays out. It's not okay for all the female candidates we hope will enter the political pipeline to have to run in political races in which describing a woman as acting like a bitch will be normal commentary.

    I haven't found Obama to be all that more sexist than a lot of people I know, but he definitely didn't endear himself to me with his "your likeable enough" and "sweetie" etc. But seriously - those are very very very minor compared to what the media did to Clinton. Simply unacceptable.

    Of course Clinton isn't in the position she's in because of sexism - by anyone or any entity. There's more than enough other reasons - choices over which she had control.

    But that doesn't make the sexism okay and it shouldn't reinforce the media's conduct.

    Please - imagine it were you or your best friend or your daughter or your mother.

    What do you want for them?

    Thanks for commenting.
  • I'm sad that they still feel the need to be tribal, to vote as a bloc, to vote out of loyalty for their own race. It's a sign that we have not advanced to a color-blind society (not that I didn't know that), that race is still very much a factor.


    That old chestnut. Since we're all giving our CVs, I'm a 30 yr old, Black, college educated (Oberlin Art history degree focused on Russian Constructivist Art), professional and I'd like to start by thanking you for implying that my vote is based on some sort of primitive friggin' "tribal" impulse rather than a analysis as reasonable as yours. Really nice. Thanks.

    Also, I'd like to point out that going into the primaries, Hillary Clinton had an overwhelming lead among Black voters who loved that family. I'd also like to point out that no one shook their heads sadly when John Kerry and Al Gore carried about 90% of the black vote in the previous two elections.

    Also, it shouldn't be a huge surprise that us younger feminists have rejected the tenants of old guard feminism as a proposed central reason for our vote. The brand of feminism championed by Hillary's crowd have been out of favor for decades withing the walls of academia.

    Where do women of color even exist in your sensibility vs. tribal instinct dichotomy? Am I liberated as a woman because I chose to hold her accountable for her Iraq War vote, or am I some sort of race-drunk tribalist because I support Obama?

    I can't even go on here. I apologize for any spelling grammar mistakes. I can't even see through the red right now.
  • jmacmanus
    Many years ago - when I first entered college - 1961 - I was playing bridge in the Student Union.

    It had just become fashionable for guys to call women bitches - the beginning of the sixties rebellion years, I guess.

    In any event, this person, who eventually became one of my best friends. called me a bitch. I threw an entire deck of cards into his face. I then told him that he would never never call me that again. And he didn't.

    Seems to me that stands need to be taken - both at the personal level and also at the public level. If sexism is overlooked because it has been around so long - it continues and continues to fester. If two women take small stands - and because of them, four more take small stands and because of them, eight more take small stands and so on and so on - we can change this.
  • One more thing, why didn't Black people all storm the gates for that whack-a-doodle Alan Keyes? Y'know, since it's skin color and not political ideas that have made us such a loyal and consistent Democratic voting block.
  • Janinedm - I've been trying to educate myself about WOC and the schism between white feminists and black feminists. I know I'm only at the very beginning, but I've gotten far enough to absolutely accept what you write here. If you haven't heard of it, there's a blog called, Black Women: Blow the Trumpet that had this really interesting post recently about black feminists and white feminists. Anyway - thanks for trying. Maybe we're on overload trying to absorb more than we can at one time, but not hopefully for all time.
  • Jmacmanus, yup. :) I agree. And good for you. I feel the exact same way - don't care how many people tell me "it's unpleasant but it happens." Not gonna happen if I have something to say about it. :)
  • Lynx
    Oy, that's the trouble with these conversations, take one wrong step, and the fighting starts. People start out tense and get angry from there on out. Especially frustrating is the extrapolation that takes place. On another blog I said that some white voters in Kentucky didn't vote for Obama out of racial bias (with numbers in my hand) and the "some" was forgotten in very short order.

    Anyway, to the subject at hand. As should be, but sadly isn't, blindingly obvious, I don't think 92% of black people vote for Obama just because he's black. Sorry for not saying that from the outset, but it didn't occur to me someone would suppose that. What I DO think is that Obama being a black man DOES account for the sheer MASSIVE level of his support amongst black voters. Put it this way, I do not think that 92% of black people would be voting for Obama if he were white. Maybe a majority would still be voting for him, but I highly doubt the numbers would be that high. Race isn't the SOLE factor of course! I doubt Condi Rice would have his numbers if she were running, but I think it is a factor.

    African Americans understandably would like to see a black president. This is going to sound terrible, but simply put I wish there wasn't an "African American community" because I wish race were irrelevant in our society. I wish no polling were done because it was as relevant as being left or right handed. This is not the case, and I think that in many ways race is more of an issue today than gender is. though I admit I'm a white woman. I suppose you, as a woman of color, would be in a better position to judge that.

    I would be interested to know how this election is breaking down amongst women of color, in terms of how many weigh race, how many gender, or both, or none. There aren't a lot of people who vote based on one single thing, be it a physical characteristic or a policy position (within the spectrum of normal policy positions of course) but issues such as gender and race sadly continue to be present, and I think they warrant discussion, as hard as it might be to remain calm throughout.
  • Lynx - I don't want to say too much about the black women/white women thing because I am just starting to learn, but there are some great blogs authored by women of color that do address that issue. Visit BlogHer.com and check out some of the posts they have under "race" but also under politics. The best authors to look for would be Kim Pearson, Maria Niles, Morra Aarons. Oh - and there is a great one that was done jointly by a white woman and a black woman - Rita Arons and a blogger whose name I'm forgetting at the moment but she authors a blog called Mocha Mama.
  • Well, if you had said at the outset you "don't think 92% of black people vote for Obama just because he's black" it would have completely contradicted the fact that you're "sad that they still feel the need to be tribal, to vote as a bloc."

    Of course race is a factor, but I don't know why it's easier to assume that Black people are doing it out of a "need to be tribal." 18-29 years olds go for Obama 75% to Clinton's 25%. What's their defect? Do you see, at a time when the national media will toss off the likelihood of a race riot if the supers were to select Hillary, as if Black people are somehow less rational, why I might be bothered by your statement? Could ya' try my shoes for one second without getting super defensive? I'm not trying to paint you as some sort of evil, Selma-style dogs and hoses jerk, but your (original, not the backtrack) implication isn't very cool. I don't want you to feel weird, but really.

    Two, it's not terribly productive to pit one traditionally progressive group against each other in general. In this case it doesn't even do much to score your dubious points. I can think of a ton of reasons to be proud of women in this election that have nothing with being a, what, better and more open minded voter than the Black constituency. Here's one: no one questioned Hillary's ability to be commander in chief. I, for one, won't be voting for her because I believe she could obliterate Iran. Two, the campaign ultimately failed on operations and messaging, not simply because she's a woman.

    Finally, I'm glad you feel that sexism is dead or dying or whatever. When I see a discussion on television on whether sometimes calling a woman a "bitch" is accurate, I have to disagree. When I look at the number of public companies with female CEOs, again, I'm going to disagree.

    I don't mean to come off as an angry pedant, but your POV is way out there for me. And outside of the occasional Holly from Cincinnati dust up back in Feb/March, I'm rarely "tense" or "angry" and I certainly don't "start out" that way. Yes, I was totally offended, but I tried to address the comment rather than the commenter, so it would be cool if my comment wasn't dismissed as invalid because I'm supposedly being touchy.
  • DLS
    With respect, JMZ, the opposite of which we've seen methodically from the Obama camp?
  • DLS
    "I think the only thing you don't trust in him is his blackness."

    It's an overdone issue by the PC-darling circus set. But what's interesting is that at the start of this campaign (up to Super Tuesday), blacks were wary of him, not seemlingly because he didn't fit the left-Dem cookie-cutter mold of the so-called 1960s-onward "black leadership," but because they were viewing him the same way other Dems were viewing him, as the underdog with a wariness questioning if he had what it takes to advance, win the nomination, and most important of all, be a serious candidate against whomever-in-the-GOP for the White House itself.

    Laying aside the activist idiocy besmirching his campaign, Obama looks sound at this point. And it isn't only black Americans (and all-too-stereotypical activist youth) that have fueled his progress since Super Tuesday.
  • I'm sorry DLS - could be because it's late in the day - gritting teeth - what exactly are you asking? :) It's been a helluva long day - I'm not following you - but want to.
  • ...and I meant to share my theory on the Black vote for Obama: it's long been understood that the traditional Democratic party platform is better for the Black community, soup to nuts, from civil liberties to education and child welfare. This has been understood despite pockets of this constituency that are very socially conservative. This same pragmatism definitely comes into play in the voting, where it's generally understood that the Dem is always the safer shot. It can even be seen with folk like Loviatar, who would rather know what he/she's going to get.

    Now I think that this group has long wanted a more left leaning candidate (or at least one that seems to be so). I think that the same two candidates with reversed messaging would have very different numbers. My bet, and there's no way to test this, is that an Obama who talked about obliterating Iran wouldn't get above 35%. Again, this is pure conjecture, but it would explain why Clinton, Gore, and Kerry's numbers were so high and why Nader was ignored and why Hillary started out ahead in that constituency.
  • Lynx
    Uh huh, and I'm being defensive? You're offended, I'm sorry about that, but I'm not going to take back my claim because I happen to believe it's true. Perhaps "tribal" was a bad choice of words, it honestly never crossed my mind that it could be considered offensive, mostly because I wasn't AIMING TO BE OFFENSIVE! I did say voting as a bloc, because 90% plus for one single candidate is damn near unanimous, and I did say that race was a factor, because I BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE. Since you read into it that I was saying race was the ONLY factor, I clarified. This is apparently not enough, but it's all I can offer.

    Geez, now you've got me annoyed! Listen, you may not agree with the analysis, you may think I overstated the issue, but I deeply resent the insinuation that I think blacks are some sort of half wild primitive tribe that only sees color. An even cursory reading over of my first and second comments clearly shows that I hold no such position.

    As for this "Finally, I'm glad you feel that sexism is dead or dying or whatever."
    That is a laughable misrepresentation of my position, which I specifically went out of my way to deny in my first comment. I believe women have made great strides, and I personally believe that the issue of race is a "hotter" (in the sense of "controversial") than the one of gender. I do not think it is dead, though I hope it's on its way towards dying.
  • Jill, I forgot to thank you for the link, though I saw my little...thing... with lynx as typical progressive infighting rather, than a white/black feminist thing. If we want to same thing, why the checks to make sure our intentions/ideologies are pure enough.

    Shoot, I did a quick internet search and found a CBS study where 83% of Black people thought the Iraq war was a bad idea back in 2007. Who cares what everyone's reasons are for backing a candidate? If you can find common ground, take it. I'd take Robert Byrd and any Appalachians who want to join the fun.

    As to the specific argument, better to have someone point out the spinach in your ideological teeth on the internet than at a dinner party that suddenly becomes awkward.

    If I'm full of it, I hope someone lets me know here.
  • Thanks, Janinedm -

    I'd only say that I recognize her comments as unenlightened the way I
    was prior to learning about/reading up on just how this election is
    seen by black women - that's an incredibly important narrative to
    really read, learn about and try to understand. I just get the sense
    that she hasn't even tried to do that in a real way - but maybe
    that's because I feel so sensitive to it now.

    Thanks for engaging. :)

    Jill
  • denisedh
    I'm a white woman, 43, and a professional. I know I have been denied some opportunities due to my gender; these were subtle denials, but I am certain had I been raised upper middle class vs. working class, my opportunities would have been much greater (i.e., Ivy league schools instead of state schools for my education). Personally, I view SES as a really important factor in terms of denied opportunties and potential, although race and gender play a part too. That said, I have personally observed disastrous situations in which unqualified people gain positions based on race and gender (I mean Affirmative Action) and therefore would never support a candidate who seems incompetent based on the view that they had been denied opportunity due to race, gender, SES, etc.
    Richardson was my first choice, Obama second, and Clinton probably last. I wasn't impressed with her management of the health care issue in 1993 and hadn't seen much to impress me since. A bigger issue was the fact that since I have been able to vote in presidential elections (1984), there has been only one election where a Bush or a Clinton weren't one of the choices. I liked Bill well enough, but family dynasty politics make me very uncomfortable. It's not logical, I know. If my choices were McCain or Clinton, I'd vote for her, with no enthusiasm and a lot of trepidation.
    When voters feel this way, I think it's hard to persuade them. I don't know if that's on the minds of the over-50 female Clinton supporters (that uneasy feeling I described above), but if it is, I don't know how a campaign would address it, aside from acknowledging it openly and showing some respect for their concerns.
  • Denise - I think that's a really honest comment - a lot of it resonates for me. I liked Bill Richardson too, after Biden and Dodd dropped out.

    What's funny is - we haven't really seen anything yet that talks about how we need to wake up and smell the coffee re: not everyone who is eligible to vote does in fact vote. So who is to say WHAT the impact of not voting will be this year. I'm particularly leery of people who say that if McCain beats Obama, it will be Hillary Clinton's fault! I want to know if those same folks will thank her if Obama puts her on the ticket and he wins...
  • Lynx
    Jill, thanks for the links, I'll try to see if I can squeeze them into my rather overstuffed blog schedule. :)
  • pacatrue
    Going to your last comment, Jillmz, I am increasingly of the opinion that both candidates need each other if there is to be a Democratic win in November. I don't necessarily mean on the same ticket as candidates, but actively campaigning one for the other. I've never felt that Clinton had all that much to gain from being VP (she could be a better Senator), and Obama only gains a little. But the Obama needs Clinton telling her supporters that he's a good guy; and Clinton, though this is being ignored, needs the same from Obama.
  • Pacatrue - I agree - this is the David Gergen line of thinking. I keep thinking to myself about how people who make these decisions ache for what they thought they could have had - Gore for example - but they can't stop dead. They have to keep moving - and honestly, either one of them.

    It's funny but maybe because I have a legal training, I can COMPLETELY understand how Obama is thinking that it's over, it's his and Clinton is thinking, it's not over until I say so. There really are arguments to be made for both of them - not necessarily good arguments, maybe not even rationale or believable, but again - lawyers throw in everything in their cases to see what sticks.

    I'm just saying. I hope it ends SOON. I am so completely plutzed. lol
  • runasim
    Something about this line of analyzing Hillary and her older feminsit supporters bothers me, though I can't quite put my finger on it concisely and clearly.

    I just don't see the 'tribailism' or symbolism involved as being that much different from what happens with other voting phenomena.. Certainly, I recognize the historic symbolism in having the first woman (or first black) president, but the emotional and mental processes involved seem to me quite similar to what happens when people vote for the Party rather than the individual, or when they vote for a candidate who is 'likable ' rather than voting on issues.

    When it comes to convincing them to vote a certain way, then, it also seems like the same reasoning is involved as in any oher campaign , Seduction (explain the benefits) mixed with scare tactics (explain the consequences) are the usual methods, and they're quite valid. , unless overdone,

    When reaching out turns into pandering, I've never been able to identify clearly. One sounds so humanitarian,and the other so cynical, but where is the boundary,, exactly?

    Then, too, statistics can't tell you what exactly it is about Hillary that created such passion. It's hard to believe that just any woman would have filled the bill. Was it Hillary the fighter , or Hillary with the Clinton brand name, perhaps?

    If the disillusioned among them insist on voting against their interests, that seems lvery much like the economically challenged who vote for conservatives.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is that the historic firsts involved are unique in this campaign (first woman, first balck) but what human nature leads people to do is as old as the hills.
  • runasim
    One of the arguments I would use to persuade these women not to waste their votes foolishly would be to remind them about SC nominations that will be oming up soon.
  • pacatrue
    Runasim said, "Something about this line of analyzing Hillary and her older feminsit supporters bothers me, though I can't quite put my finger on it concisely and clearly."

    One thing that bothers me is... how to express... I'm not convinced that "older feminists" is an accurate portrayal of the hardcore support Sen. Clinton has or where it comes from. Maybe it's that the term feminist has been so abused by people of so many political persuasions (though of course it's a past time with some Talk Radio-type conservatives) for so long. It smacks of sidelining real women as "those feminists" again. It's labeling used to dismiss.
  • Pacatrue and Runasim - I understand re: the labeling. And confess that I've been in a fog about labeling for a couple of months now. Never had been before but then started delving into women of color and black v. white feminist stuff and the writings on those topics include tons and tons of labels. That has absolutely floored me - my education and experience treats labels as stigmatizing and negative.

    So I broached that with some women and their response was that the labeling for them in the context of the WOC conversations (and class privileged and gender this or that - there's just a whole bunch I apologize for not knowing off the top of my head yet) and was told that it's empowering to them - and that that's what the breakdown is. In other words, it seems that the use of labels is desired by some and maybe even the re-assigning of stigma, depending on the label.

    Anyway - I'm really not sure. But I agree - personally? I don't call myself a feminist even though I know others call me that. I just don't like the label because it's very limiting and not very accurate for me - in part because we just don't have a common broad description anymore.

    HOWEVER - here is a great video called This is What a Feminist Looks Like. I really think it does a nice job of explaining/exploring where we are with the concept.

    As for the older feminists thing, let me just say that, after being at a conference at MIT in March with 640 women in the media and activist groups, there is absolutely a divide between younger and older feminists. Now - whether that has a lot to do with Clinton's support or not, I have to defer to people who are gathering data.

    But I can tell you from my experience since at least January that yes, I have met several women who are 55 or 60 and up who absolutely believe that it is okay to want Clinton just because she is a woman and that it is now or never.

    There are also women under that age who feel the same way - but I do not believe their numbers are as large.

    Again - this is all based on my experiences - not polling etc.
  • ToHo95
    Jill,

    When you say that you don't trust Obama, are you also saying that you do trust Hillary? What is there about her record, including her various votes on Iraq being motivated purely by political concerns and her baffling Bosnia sniper story, that cause you to trust her?
  • goddess1
    I am a woman, 66, Black, wealthy, and with a J.D. Degree. I have all the demographic criteria to be a Barack Obama supporter. That said, I am a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton.

    Your comment to jmacmanus was outright, over the top nasty. I am a participant in politics enough to know that to call every white person a racist if the person is not an Obama supporter is a Barak Obama campaign talking point. Supporters of both campaigns receive talking points by email on a regular basis.That talking point of "racist" because you are white is counter-productive. Just as labeling me an "Aunt Tom" would be counter-productive.

    Calling white persons racist who do not support Obama has by now become expected rhetoric from Obama supporters so it rolls off the backs of most white Clinton supporters. It was not your expected racist comment that I call nasty. The nastiness was your comment about the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King and the liklihood that jmacmanus opposed his birthday holiday and probably found fault with him . You have zero basis for saying that. For all that you know, she may have been one of the white freedom riders. It is comments like yours that drive a deeper wedge between Obama and Clinton supporters.
    If Obama is the nominee, he will need every Clinton supporter in the country to vote for him. He will also NEED every contribution he can get to battle the Republican machine effectvely. At the beginning of this campaign to become the Democratic nominee, there was no question in my mind - whoever the Democratic nominee - I would vote for the person. I am no longer of that thinking. The comments of Obama supporters that Black Americans who do not support him are traitors to the race have swayed me out of my "either one will do thinking."

    In political campaigns, I also vote with my check book. Unlike James Carville, a well known political analyst and a Clinton supporter, who says he will write Obama a check if he is the nominee, I will not write Obama a check. To the extent that I am not a legitimate Black American voter because I do not support Obama, that is the same extent to which I will not write him a legitimate black golden check.
    I have wonderful Black friends, male and female. I have wonderful White friends, male and female. Some of us support Hillary, both black and white.. Others of us support Barack. both black and white..

    Your paint/ write with a broad brush, lady, with no discernable boundaries. Mind out that you don't get your paint on an area that for you would be the most least desirable area to have your paint. Racists come in all colors!
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC