Clinton voters use feminism as an excuse to help McCain in the GE.

[mckeown1128]

There are many posts on DU recently talking about how Clinton supporters can't vote for Obama in the GE or that they are going to vote for McCain. These thoughts are common all over the blogosphere.

They keep saying that it is because the "male" party leadership have been "stealing" the election for Obama. Yet, they post not 1 single shred of proof for this claim. They just say it... I guess because they "feel" it. No facts to back it up of course.... they just know that it is true. The closest thing that is ever offered as any type of "proof" is FL an MI being stripped of their delegates. Which is ridiculous since they were de-delegated(?!?) months before their off-the-record primaries. At a time when Hillary said she didn't need to even take her name off the ballot like Obama and Edwards because "MI wasn't going to count anyway"... yet now of course her supporters say that those inaccurate votes should count... they say that of course in between when they are calling for an unfunded revote...in a wonderful contradiction that the original votes are indeed expendable... which one is it.... were they legitimate or were they illegitimate votes that require a revote. They also claim that Democratic leaders like Dean are trying to take the nomination away from Hillary by not funding the FL and MI primaries. Of course Dean thinks MI and FL should fund their own primaries just like the other 48 states.

Regardless... FL and MI would barely move Clinton closer to goal even if you were to count the inaccurate vote totals from the primaries that all the candidates including Clinton told people were a waste of time.

They talk about how Obama hates women. Of course they offer no proof. ... ohh wait they offered sweetie-gate. (which is hardly any type of proof that he "hates" women) Of course they ignore the fact that his policies (100% NARAL rating, 100% Planned Parenthood rating, etc) and his private life (raised by a single mother, is married to a woman, has two female children, etc) all reflect a progressive Senator who has great respect for women.


So, now the new theme is that Obama, and the supposedly sexist leadership of the Democratic Party, and sexist Obama supporters, and a sexist media has all conspired against Clinton to "steal" the election with their sexist tools of voting, caucuses, rules, and reporting of Delegate totals.


Speaking of Clinton... Her supporters have to main arguments as to why everyone should support Hillary.

1. It would be great to have another Clinton in the White House.

2. It is time for a woman president.

The problem is...
There is nothing more insulting and decidedly un-feminist than defining a woman based on her husbands career. A real feminist would not run on her husbands career but her own... all 7 years of her elected office experience. She wouldn't try to run on everything good in husbands elected career (always saying "we did this" or "we accomplished that" in reference to her husbands achievements.. excluding of course the inconvenient parts like NAFTA and UNhealthcare achievements)

And as for the constant "I'm supporting her because it is time for a woman"... When people point out that they don't mind a woman president just not Hillary... Clinton's supporters smugly ask "if not Hillary then who?"

I leave with one question for Hillary supporters. Where were all you supposed feminists when Carol Moseley Braun was running for president in 04? What if someone asked you:

"If not Braun than who?"

[Bonobo]

1. Yeah and they claim to support the "Democrat Party". Go figure!

[dchill]

2. NARAL and Planned Parenthood...

don't count anymore, sweetie. ;)

[Cha]

3. Pa-thetic

Pissers can't even come up with an intelligent red herring.

[dchill]

4. Nice - name-calling, what a novel concept...

You just came up with an unintelligent brown herring.

[Cha]

5. I don't care what you

think.

[dchill]

7. I know that... I know that...

It's so funny you think I didn't know that!
:eyes:

[EFerrari]

6. "If not Braun then who?" That's a good question, isn't it? n/t

[mckeown1128]

8. I think of it every time they try to use the ol'...

"if not Clinton than who?" comment to try to paint Obama supporters as sexist. It bother's me that they don't even catch how fake they are being when they try to pull this sexism crap. What an insult to feminism some of them are.

[EFerrari]

10. Actual feminists are tired of shuddering.

No kidding.

[dansolo]

9. The MI governor is a woman, and a Hillary supporter

She signed the bill moving the primary date, in violation of the DNC rules. Unlike FL, they can't blame the Republicans.

[mckeown1128]

11. FL can't blame the republicans either...

it was a Democrat who introduced the legislation and the FL Dem party backed it all the way. I personally think they moved it up to try to improve their Dem. voter rolls. (They most likely thought that the primary would become uncompetitive quickly)


I also think (based on exit polling and polls) that Obama would have won MI had they all campaigned there.

[PatGund]

12. It plays with something I've noticed

The idea that Sen. Clinton "deserves" or is "entitled" to the nomination and the presidency. That it is "her turn", or that it might be someone's "last chance to see a woman elected"

The problem is they have so much invested in this attitude that it creates blinders to negative behaviour that Sen. Clinton and her campaign is doing. So when the backlash happens due to this behaviour, the choices are either:

1) Excuse it due to some "ism", i.e. "You're just sexist", or "the Democratic Party is sexist and discriminating against her", or even "the voters are sexist and shouldn't be trusted"

2) Blame the backlash on some "flaw" they see in the people in question, i.e. "These kids are just following the Sen. Obama fad, they need to shut up / wait their turn / stand aside so the 'adult' superdelegates can select Sen. Clinton", or "these 'Obamabots' are a cult and are not 'real' Democrats!"

3) Project the flaws from their choice to the opposition, i.e. "Obama is running an negative campaign", or "he's lying about so many things", (note, this choice works best if the person ignores any request to prove their claim and/or ignores any evidence to the contrary.)

Personally I think it's foolish to act like a spoiled child saying "if I don't get what I want then I'll take my vote and go home and YOU'LL BE SORRY!!". Which is how I see ANYONE saying "If (name of person here) doesn't get the nomination, then I won't vote in November / will vote for McCain / cut off my nose to spite my face"

[mckeown1128]

13. well said...well said. NT