Reasons Why Clinton Voters Still Won’t Support Obama

Presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama still faces a big problem: many Senator Hillary Clinton supporters still aren’t supporting him and their feelings seemingly override any partisan concerns over what a John McCain administration might bring in terms of specifics.

But why? Salon’s Rebecca Traister did some interviews and came up with some reasons — reasons that underscore more than ever the political perils facing not just Obama but Clinton herself, if she tries for another run at the White House further down the road and is blamed because her supporters basically boycotted an Obama candidacy during a Democratic “sure-to-win” year. Writes Traister:

To be fair, it’s not just women. There are plenty of Clinton supporters of every demographic description who are still ticked. But yes, it’s true that the Clinton base skewed female, and that women over 30 are the most vocal of the malcontents. Some of them are calling themselves “PUMAs” (as in “Party Unity My Ass”), an acronym that makes them sound, appropriately enough, like cougars in a very bad mood. Who are these women, and why are they such buzzkills?

Remember that classic of pop-psychological cheese, “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus”? This offensive but rhetorically useful book (yes, I’m invoking it; address your letters of complaint to rtraister@salon.com) states that often, in conflict, women simply want to be heard. They want to air their grievances and let their opponents know where they’re coming from. Now the Democratic Party is moving forward, as it must, but it is doing so without giving the Clinton women a real hearing — without letting them vent their anger. It is the social equivalent of talking over them, waving off their complaints, assuming they’ll come around. This is a mistake. This is only making things worse (even if, as Walter Shapiro notes, history says they will come around, no matter how many PUMA T-shirts and Web sites like this one may be sprouting now).

Here the list of reasons she gives. This does NOT include her detailed and MUST READ analysis. Go to the link to read more:

1. They are angry because their candidate lost a close contest.

2. They are angry because their historic opportunity is over.

3. They are angry about rumors that Obama may choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton as his running mate.

4. They are angry that we started to talk about sexism only once Clinton stopped being a threat.

5. They are angry at the media’s repeated denial of sexism, and they are angry at Keith Olbermann. [JG: Once again I'll say it: Olbermann will never never never be moderator on NBC's "Meet The Press."]

6. They are mad at Howard Dean.

7. They are mad at Barack Obama.

8. They are mad at Bill Clinton. Um, obviously.

9. They are mad at Mark Penn.

10. They are mad at Hillary Clinton for conceding and not taking their fight on to Denver.

11. They are mad that everyone believes them to be old, white and racist. They are mad at the people they thought were supposed to be progressives for treating them badly.

12. And finally, they are angry because they feel they are held hostage by the party by their reproductive organs.

What’s what’s the constant in all of these? It’s this:

This is NOT anger about policy issues. This is NOT anger about ideology. It’s highly personal. This isn’t a list about people being unable to accept Obama’s health car proposal, his stance on the war, or his views on how to solve the energy crunch.

There are dangers now for both Obama and Clinton and, obviously, great potential benefits for McCain.

THE DANGER TO OBAMA: The list shows that Obama faces a Herculean task in bringing some Clinton supporters into the fold because the list of questions shows why some will vote for McCain rather than him. It isn’t about issue specifics, which can be more easily addressed and worked out. It also shows why when Bill Clinton Sunday refused to answer reporters’ questions about when he’d endorse Obama, his signal made things much worse. Bill Clinton is doing to the Obama campaign what he did to his wife’s campaign.

THE DANGER TO CLINTON: If she really wants to run again for President in 2012 or 2016 (all the talk about her being too old then is malarkey) she will have a problem. Do Clinton, her husband or her supporters think that if Obama loses because Clinton supporters sat on their hands on election day (or voted for McCain) Obama’s Democratic coalition will rush with open arms to another Clinton presidential candidacy? Or would followers of a defeated Obama continue the cycle of anger and make sure that Hillary Clinton was opposed tooth and nail and put their clout behind another candidate if she runs in 2012 or 2016?