Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 21, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

THE FED-UP FEMALE....Reader Mary S. emails to echo something that I've heard from more than a few women:

The most important and strangely overlooked development in this primary season so far may be the historic level (in terms both of hard numbers and percentage of the electorate) of women turning out to vote. If that trend persists in the general, none of the Republicans has a chance, including McCain.

What I think may be happening out there is this: you have a new generation of women, with entirely different political experiences, attitudes and needs than the generation before them, just reaching the age (40-60) when a generation really begins to show up at the polls and exercise its fullest political power. And you have a candidate who is uniquely positioned to bring them, in greater numbers than ever before, into the political process.

Remember (or, if you are too young to remember, give some thought to the fact that) it was men (the "angry white male"), much more than women, entering that age group back in the late 70s who ushered in, gave energy to and sustained the Reagan Revolution. In the Boomer generation, which is now coming into its fullest power as the voters of the WWII and Silent generations increasingly depart the scene, the greatest energy and desire for political change and for recognition of their (mostly overlooked and neglected) accomplishments and needs, comes from women. And that is true across all classes and races. This development will bode well for the Democrats, whether the general election candidate is Hillary or not. But, if Hillary Clinton turns out to be the first politician to benefit from this development, it will probably be because, as a woman of that generation, she is just in a better position to hear, see and speak to it, and is less invested in the old (traditionally male) political narratives (in which such a development is close to unimaginable, except, for some (Chris Matthews?), perhaps as nightmare or catastrophe), than the men.

As the angry white men shuffle off the stage, another revolution may be in the works — this one fed by the energy of the "fed up female."

Kevin Drum 6:08 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (71)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Mary S. has a point.

I am wondering what this means to Inkblot's run? Will it be better for him to pander to women, or should he just go for fed up cats?

Posted by: optical weenie on January 21, 2008 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

As a 57 year-old progressive from NYC, I can say that I am :fed up" with the last seven years, but I am proud to say that I do not think that any woman running for President is the answer to my needs. I have been supporting Obama wholeheartedly, and most of my female freinds "of a certain age" are too. HRC in our view will never be able to win a general election-far too many negatives. And her sense of ENTITLEMENT is loathesome. The last four weeks or so of race-baiting by the Clinton campaign have hardened my view:I will never vote for her for President. I live in NYC, so my vote probably would't tip the scales in any case, but I don't vote for race-baiters:simple as that!

Posted by: beth on January 21, 2008 at 6:24 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I don't see that this difers from the 70's. The demographics (percentage men versus women) coming of age is not likely to have changed significantly. Perhaps what you are saying is that women who reached age 40 in the seventies had formed their opinions in the pre-feminist era, but those coming of age today have largely undergone the transition in thinking about the proper roles of women.

I think this might be moderately pro Democrat -assuming that women who haven't been voting, but have now decided to are primarily Democratic leaning. I suspect that the vast majority with strong leanings -either pro/anti modernist have likely already been voting.

Personally I don't think HRC is a good flag carrier for this change, because of the strong (mostly undeserved) negatives. As we were discussing last week, it is amazing how many people have accepted the Hillary as rabid leftwing Trotskyte propaganda.

Posted by: bigTom on January 21, 2008 at 6:26 PM | PERMALINK

it will probably be because, as a woman of that generation, she is just in a better position to hear, see and speak to it, and is less invested in the old (traditionally male) political narratives..
Heh, Hillary is an ideal female candidate -- is this a joke? There will be female candidates that are as the author describes, but anyone who thinks its Hillary is sorely confused.

Posted by: Jor on January 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

That's nice.

I'm sure going from the "angry white man" to "angry white woman" paradigm will cure what ails this country.

Posted by: lampwick on January 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

The Democratic primary turnout was actually relatively more male in NH in 2008 than in 2000 according to CNN exit polls. This theory is not supported by the data.

Posted by: ikl on January 21, 2008 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

(Sigh) Great progress. Let's jump from one tribalism to another. 'Angry white men' to 'neo-feminists' and 'empowered black females'.

From 1-21-2008 CNN Featured Headline Story:

" ...These [black] women face a unique dilemma: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?"

D'ya think that maybe they could make their choice by evaluating which candidate would do the best job no matter their race or gender?

Wait, this is the USA. Sorry for the silliness.

Posted by: Buford on January 21, 2008 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

I think you're right -- overall this makes me very glad we have a bill of rights.

Posted by: jerry on January 21, 2008 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

But we boomers have been firmly instructed to get out of the way. Didn't you get the memo?

Posted by: thersites on January 21, 2008 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Inkblot run? Perhaps he'll run after the sound of a can opener. Not much chance he'll run after anything else.

Posted by: jerry on January 21, 2008 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

Geez, women have been fed up for most of their lives. I'm a fed-up, middle-aged woman and I was that way long before I'd even heard of George W. Bush.

And I'm with beth: I support Obama. I am beginning to hate the Clintons and I *never* felt remotely close to that before.

Posted by: scruncher on January 21, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

But we boomers have been firmly instructed to get out of the way. Didn't you get the memo?

Maybe the kiddies didn't get my return volley? It was a resounding "Fuck you! And while you're at it, get the hell off my lawn!"

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 21, 2008 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Let me add my voice to Mary S. - I think the extent to which Hillary appeals to women is largely under- appreciated, even though it's there quite clearly in the polls.

Posted by: Matilde on January 21, 2008 at 6:43 PM | PERMALINK

Count me in as a 47 year old angry white man.

Who will vote for Edwards, Clinton, or Obama.

Posted by: jharp on January 21, 2008 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

I believe that feminism is morally correct, for the most part. But it doesn't inspire me. Is this because I am a man? Well, yes, but I am also white, and I find the civil rights movement enormously inspiring.

Why is this? In part, I think, because the civil rights movement for African-Americans has been predominantly integrationist in its sentiments. By contrast, the feminist movement has been about evenly split between integrationist (break the glass ceiling) and separatist (women are special) impulses. That's my perception of it, unbalanced as it may be.

For some reason the feminist movement never created a leader that could appeal to men in the same way that MLK could appeal to white Americans (or even Malcolm X, who is an oddly inspiring figure even though his separatist politics are abhorrent).

Clinton vs. Obama embodies this problem for me. She doesn't inspire me as a leader; he does. He's calling for a unified America; she seems more interested in Democratic and feminist triumphalism.

Posted by: lampwick on January 21, 2008 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Beth: Didn't you get the memo? Senator Obama admitted during the last debate that his organization was playing the race card. Guess not... Still going to vote for him?

As to the entitlement thing, it's called running a general election strategy. Her STRATEGY was to run as the inevitable winner so that she didn't have to tack right after the primary. The progressive blogs spanked her for that.

Senator Obama is attempting to do the same thing (general election strategy) with evoking the images of St. Ronny. And now he is getting spanked for that.

So they have both been spanked.

Now, on with the campaigning and may the best person kick the shit out of the Re-Pukes come November.

Posted by: wasabi on January 21, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

Matilde,
Of course we are under-appreciated. And that is why we will really come out to vote this time.

Posted by: optical weenie on January 21, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

In a primary between Obama and Clinton I'm going for Clinton.

First of all, Obama talking about "moving past the divisiveness of the 60s" is just another way of saying "triangulation". None of the big issues of the 60s have been resolved and all Obama is promising is not take a progressive stand on these issues. On the left-to-right spectrum Obama is the same as Clinton, minus the experience.

More importantly, it's about enfranchising the women. Right now a full half of our talent is being wasted because they are female. That is an absolute ton of brain power and person-hours.

As for the objections above, I've heard them before. I heard them when black people wanted jobs and the vote. I heard them when the first woman demanded a job with Seattle City Light as a lineperson. I heard them when the first woman demanded a job as a firefighter.

Well, now we have female firefighters and City Light workers and they're doing just fine. We have two female Senators from Washington State, a female governor, and more talented state legislators than I can mention. I disagree with most of them about something, but they're all head and shoulders above the male hacks we would have had in the old days.

And who would miss the fun of the press attacking Clinton? If a man runs they'll try to paint him as feminine- well, guess what, Clinton is already feminine. If they try to make her out as too masculine, then that's like we were electing a man.

Sometimes you just have to suck it up and do what's right for the country. Electing Clinton president is what we need to do now.

Posted by: serial catowner on January 21, 2008 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

It's interesting to note that almost exactly the same text from reader Mary S. was posted as a comment on this article:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_democrats_could_blow_it_again

Scroll down to the comment from "mschu". The "new generation of women" phrase is nearly word for word identical. Someone who wants to make the same point in as many venues as possible? Or is it a little astroturfing?

Posted by: JD on January 21, 2008 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

I grant this correspondent 6 full kudos. What an absolutely spot-on analysis. I'm not an HRC supporter. I have grave doubts. However, and HOWEVER, for years people have said that non-voting women is the big demographic vein to tap.

If HRC has tapped this vein, god help the Repukeliscum.

Posted by: POed Lib on January 21, 2008 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

MSNBC's exit poll in NH showed Hillary's supporters would have picked Bill 58% to 42% over her if they had the choice. If Hillary is going to win the nomination she should campaign on her own merits, not her husband's and certainly not with him, an ex president for God's sake, acting as hatchet man leading the slash and burn campaign for her.

Posted by: markg8 on January 21, 2008 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Oh and those angry white men? Some of those clowns are ginning up a $250 million media blitz to run against the Dem nominee and our congressionals in the fall. They're not dead yet.

Posted by: markg8 on January 21, 2008 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

If women want to get out there in support of women candidates, more power to 'em.

I do wish, however, they'd find a better candidate. HRC makes me ill. I don't cotton to triangulation, her refusal to admit that her Iraq vote was a huge mistake is a major character flaw in a candidate, and her recent statements about Joe Lieberman, had they been made in my presence, would have gotten her a cream pie full in the face.

None of this has anything to do with her gender.

By the way, replace "gender" with "race", and I'll make the same argument about Obama. I have no problem with voting for a non-Caucasian for President. But I don't like Obama's schtick, and, like HRC, when I vote for the eventual Dem nominee in November, it will be with fingers pressed firmly down on my nose.

Posted by: Cap'n Phealy on January 21, 2008 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

It's an interesting point, although people who vote for other people based on gender will get what they deserve.

Is it any dumber to vote for someone because of their gender than to vote for someone because you might want to drink beer with them?

As long as we keep making choices based on this crap, we will keep getting the leaders we deserve (and vote for).

Still, it is a good point. The angry white male has been a dominant force for too long, and even though Hillary is a bankrupt and corrupt politician who will bank hard to the right as soon as she stops having to suck up to the dirty hippies, she could be the first early sign of change coming to the country. Assuming she doesn't screw it up by triangulating us into oblivion.

Posted by: BombIranForChrist on January 21, 2008 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

But if Hillary's elected, my d@ck will fall off!

Posted by: thersites on January 21, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

I hope Mary is correct that a lot of fed up women show up to vote this time. But to paraphrase Dr. King: "I have a dream. ...a candidate is judged not by his or her gender or skin color, but by his or her voting record and issue positions." Obama has my vote.

-pissed off 51-year old single middle-class white women in red Orange County.

Posted by: the neighbor on January 21, 2008 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINK

A steady diet of the GOP's Clinton Kool-Aid over the past 16 years has clearly taken its toll among some of us.

As I've noted before, I will support our party's nominee in the general election, whoever he or she may be.

But for right now, I must take a pass on the candidacy of the good senator from Illinois, whose campaign apparently prefers to depend upon none-too-subtle appeals to potential Republican cross-over voters in order to achieve success in our primaries, rather than clearly address the practical concerns expressed by the rank-and-file of his own party.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 21, 2008 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a pissed off 52-year old white woman. I support HRC. But not because she's a woman. I agree with her stance on the issues. I like her. I think she's smart. I think she's mature. I think she has great potential and could do great things for this country. Truth be told, I am sick of old white men ruining everything. My career was in a strongly male-dominated field and I know that I had to work twice as hard to be recognized half as much. I think that is true of HRC and most everyone else of our generation. Younger women today do not know what we went through to get to where we are today. I find that sad. So if all the pissed off women vote for HRC then she will win in a landslide.

Posted by: Angel on January 21, 2008 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry to burst your balloon, Wasabi, but that memo the Obama campaign compiled was a list of racially charged remarks made by Mark Penn, Bob Kerreyand Bill Shaheen in the last several weeks. Face it: the Clintons are confronted with the most talented politican since JFK. They roll the race card. DESPICALBLE.

Posted by: beth on January 21, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

Thersites - You should have attached your deck more securely to your house, then. Sheesh.

Posted by: lampwick on January 21, 2008 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

I find it odd that so many women support Hillary, considering how she and Bill threw Monica under the bus. But I guess we're supposed to forget that. Well, I'm a man, but I'm not angry. I am, however, disillusioned with the utter dishonesty of the Clinton clan. I've never voted for a Republican in my life and I'm not about to start now. But I will never vote for Evita, either. And I don't think I'm at all alone in that.

Posted by: Traven on January 21, 2008 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

As was said by BombIranForChrist, if we vote in a candidate because she lacks a Y chromosome, we will get what we deserve. Unfortuantely that will manifest itself as poor battlefield preparation for the general election battle to come. The Repubs have hugely invested in creating the anti-HRC fever-swamp, and nominating her means we will be fighting the battle the republicans want against their strongest weapon. Should gender politics outflank strategy (choosing the battlefield that plays to our strengths, and the enemies weaknesses)?

Posted by: bigTom on January 21, 2008 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

neighbor,

Do you even know Obama's and Clinton's voting records, or are you just relying on how you remember them voting on a few key issues? The National Journal says that Obama's overall voting record is more liberal than Clinton's, but that's not true on social issues. Clinton's rating when she entered the Senate was about the same as Obama's for his first two years, and the most "conservative" aspect of her record is on economic votes, not foreign policy!

So if it's liberal economic policies that matter to you, then support Obama and hope that he's both sufficiently liberal to justify your support and sufficiently diplomatic to win support from across the aisle that his less-liberal colleagues could not. But if it's liberal social policies that you support, you might wnat to look again at Clinton's voting record.

On the other hand, maybe your mind is already made up, and you don't want to be confused by the facts.

I hope Mary is correct that a lot of fed up women show up to vote this time. But to paraphrase Dr. King: "I have a dream. ...a candidate is judged not by his or her gender or skin color, but by his or her voting record and issue positions." Obama has my vote.

Posted by: the neighbor on January 21, 2008 at 7:14 PM |

Posted by: keith on January 21, 2008 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK

*.

Posted by: mhr on January 21, 2008 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINK

I'd vote for HRC. No, she's not pure, she's a pol, Bill can be a dick in both literal and figurative ways, but, damn, they got something done that was good for Americans besides the rich, and she's the only one with the resume to do it again.
There's an incredible amount of repair work to be done in the USofA to fix the last 8 years, and make this country like we were told it should be again, where everybody gets a decent shake.
The only way that the ice caps won't melt more, health care might get fixed, we get the hell out of Irag (remember that little war?) and the average working person will see a little more in their pocket is to elect someone who can do what it takes (See LBJ on civil rights for example) to outwit, outslug, and outgun the wackos who have steered this ship onto the rocks.
If Hillary's show us the ****'s to do that, then she's my man, uh, woman, uh, well you get the idea.
Ok, back to my normal, sensitive, liberal self....

Posted by: GVC on January 21, 2008 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

The Democratic primary turnout was actually relatively more male in NH in 2008 than in 2000 according to CNN exit polls. This theory is not supported by the data.

Posted by: ikl on January 21, 2008 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

A point. But much more important than how many turn out is how those who do turn out vote. One overlooked factor in the whole conservative revolution thing is that they've been able to draw fair support from women by pitching a toned down version of their usual message of threatened, angry derision. The Republicans have run ads featuring a bitchy sounding, middle-aged woman narrator, deriding Democrats for two elections in a row (the one I remember most was an ad against Kerry, which attacked him for being a phony while managing to bring up the whole Gore invented the internet thing, with the voiceover coming from some menopausal woman who sounded like she'd just put down a copy of Us magazine before ripping in to yet another dumbass Dem). The Republicans do an excellent job of appealing to bitter, angry people of both sexes, and while the female side of this isn't a huge demographic for them, in a 50% voting world, it's one they need if they're going to win. If Hillary or some other Dem can take it away from them, it's a big deal. Whether this will be a "soccer mom" or "Nascar dad" kind of thing I don't know, but it's an interesting angle.

Posted by: Martin Gale on January 21, 2008 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

And I'm a fed-up, white, looking-back-on-middle age male.

Posted by: GVC on January 21, 2008 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

I'm in the 25th year of a full-on hissy-fit that is showing no signs of letting up, and I haven't bothered hiding it. But I have two sisters who fit the "fed-up female" demographic. Neither have been very active in the past, but they are fired up and pissed off and scaring the hell out of a whole lot of people these days. One of them (in Iowa) literally ranted at the poor soul who came to her door stumping for a Republican and backed him off her porch - he almost fell down the steps backing away from her. My brother in law, I hear, has been spending an inordinate amount of time in his woodshop.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 21, 2008 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINK

Mary S. : What I think may be happening out there is this: you have a new generation of women, with entirely different political experiences, attitudes and needs than the generation before them, just reaching the age (40-60) when a generation really begins to show up at the polls and exercise its fullest political power.

AND, you have the most embarrassingly inept "macho" male ever to occupy the office, backed up by an angry, senile, incompetent piece of garbage.

Both of them, a disgrace to manhood. Objects of record-level scorn world-wide.

Posted by: Econobuzz on January 21, 2008 at 8:18 PM | PERMALINK

I'm hearing a lot of this. And it makes sense.

(a) http://www.bls.gov/opub/working/page3b.htm
The female labor force participation rate has grown considerably over the last 20 years -- it's one of the biggest social changes in my lifetime.

(b) Most women who have been out working more than a few years, and especially women who went to work in the 70s or 80s, have put up with a ton of shit because of their gender, including the line that any successful woman is by definition too ambitious and cold and thus not "likable." And so they perceive it when it's done to other women.

Go back to the debate right before the NH primary. A lot of us thought Obama looked commanding and HRC looked tired and crabby. But I think many women saw Charles Gibson and his sidekick (who were pretty dreadful) plus Edwards and Obama ganging up on HRC. Obama didn't get why the "likability" question aimed at her was so jerkish and didn't respond well.

To the extent that this is part of her appeal it's pretty resilient, because you expect her to be attacked unfairly and rally around.

Posted by: c on January 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

As the angry white men shuffle off the stage, another revolution may be in the works — this one fed by the energy of the "fed up female."

This is great, and I'm happy they're here, but it would've been nice to see them 4 years ago. Talk about your slow fuses.

Posted by: junebug on January 21, 2008 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

To change the topic a bit:
Which candidate would best move the progressive agenda forward?
(1) A clear progressive in touch with the base.
(2) A center-left candidate who appeals more towards the center then the left wing.

I think (2) actually advances the progressive cause more. The reason being that if (2) can win by a landslide, the legislature will be stacked with progressives. If (1) wins, but has a bare majority (or less) of the legislature the results will be disappointing. The ability to deliver a congessional/senatorial majority is more important than where the president stands on the left-right scale.

Posted by: bigTom on January 21, 2008 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

GENDER VS AGENDA

AGENDA SHOULD WIN


Posted by: Shrink in sf on January 21, 2008 at 9:05 PM | PERMALINK

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_democrats_could_blow_it_again Scroll down to the comment from "mschu". The "new generation of women" phrase is nearly word for word identical. Someone who wants to make the same point in as many venues as possible?

I think you're right, JD, about this comment by Erika S. - oh I'm sorry, Mary S... or is it perhaps one of the commenters on this thread? Still, it's an interesting point to begin a discussion. I think it rather restricts the class of fed-ups, however.

wasabi, btw, is Japanese for horse______ (see if you can complete this)

(Campaign season lo-and-behold loads of new posters slagging one candidate or another... my starting point for reading every post in this season is, does this seem agenda-driven, does it just present talking points or does it seem written by a real individual with an individual pov? There seems rather a lot of the former... Interesting too, the psychological process of watching posters feelings harden around certain candidates as the season progresses. A lot of people could do with a stepping back...)

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 21, 2008 at 9:13 PM | PERMALINK

"Face it: the Clintons are confronted with the most talented politican since JFK"

Oh good grief. The sum total of his political success on the national stage to date is BEATING ALAN FREAKING KEYES!!! So far he has actually *demonstrated* the least political talent of the three candidates. He hasn't won a Senate seat in a red state (and been easily on track to doing it again) as Edwards has and he hasn't scared a big name Republican into sitting out and then beaten another as Hillary did.

Can we please drop the ridiculous hyperbole? The most talented politician since JFK remains a Clinton.

Posted by: chaboard on January 21, 2008 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure going from the "angry white man" to "angry white woman" paradigm will cure what ails this country.

Yeah, we always get such sterling governance from a bloc of pissy, resentful voters. I guess it's women's turn to screw things up by enabling dishonest, half-assed pols... it won't do squat for the country, but the pictures of a woman behind the podium with the seal will make them feel better.

Sigh.

Posted by: latts on January 21, 2008 at 9:23 PM | PERMALINK

wasabi, btw, is Japanese for horse______ (see if you can complete this)

Splutter, cough...goodness, how undelicious to learn that, as I'm presently--no lie--eating wasabi peas.

Posted by: shortstop on January 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting thread. It seems there are one heck of a lot of fed-up women voters out there.

But I think it's part of a larger phenomenon. I teach High School science (physics and chemistry) and in my classes the to students are almost always girls and they tend to skew towards the upper end of the curve (although my worst and most problem behavior students also tend to be girls as well). Girls really run things at my high school and that's not how it was in the early 80s when I was in school.

I think a whole lot of aging white guys in the Chris Matthews mold are going to wake up very soon to discover they are becoming an increasingly irrelevant minority and time has passed them by.

Posted by: Kent on January 21, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

And there also quite a few women voters who are fed up with Hillary, making he horrible negative numbers among independents (many of whom are female) still very significant.

Knee jerk voting for someone of your own gender/race/class is always bad news.

Posted by: Andrew on January 21, 2008 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

oops, make that the "TOP students are almost always girls"

Posted by: Kent on January 21, 2008 at 9:27 PM | PERMALINK

I am so very tired of testosterone in our political system, but I wonder if HRC is actually the candidate with the least.

Posted by: Nat on January 21, 2008 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

hey ss, don't let it hurt your appetite! Radish!... wasabi was talking a lot of horse radish!

Posted by: snicker-snack on January 21, 2008 at 9:40 PM | PERMALINK

Lee Stranahan
says that Barack Obama has an answer for your mama (er the "angry white woman.")

Posted by: corpus juris on January 21, 2008 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK
Oh good grief. The sum total of his political success on the national stage to date is BEATING ALAN FREAKING KEYES!!!

Er, he did beat Hillary in the Iowa caucus, handily.

So far he has actually *demonstrated* the least political talent of the three candidates. He hasn't won a Senate seat in a red state (and been easily on track to doing it again) as Edwards has

And he beat Edwards in every primary competition so far.

and he hasn't scared a big name Republican into sitting out and then beaten another as Hillary did.

Can we please drop the ridiculous hyperbole? The most talented politician since JFK remains a Clinton.

chaboard, it is also easy to overstate the Clintons' electoral successes. As I stated elsewhere: his first presidential election was exceptional due to Perot, who arguably was a spoiler to Bush. His second was against a terrible campaigner. He's usually blamed for losing congress. He left the Democrats in a weak position that is at least partly to blame for Gore's loss in 2000. Hillary won general elections in an extremely liberal state against extremely weak opponents. McCain is not going to be a weak opponent.


Also, are there actual polls that show that conservative women (e.g., the evangelical crowd) is going to vote for Hillary? Has the risk of "what's-the-matter-with-Kansas" syndrome completely disappeared?

Posted by: Dagome on January 21, 2008 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

I blame it all on Thelma and Louise.

Posted by: Andy on January 21, 2008 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Keith,
Foreign policy is is at the top of my list, ergo, Obama. With respect to social policy, Hillary said that she would vote for an flag-burning amendment. That's way over the top.

Yes, I do examine voting records. The examples above are but a few. So take your "she doesn't know what she's talking about" attitude and....

Posted by: the neighbor on January 21, 2008 at 10:08 PM | PERMALINK

I know a few women who say they would move to another country if Hillary were to be elected.

But then I know a lot of people who claim to have very strong feelings about things they appear to know very little about.

Posted by: little ole jim on January 21, 2008 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

The kicker is that Fed Up Female and Angry White Male are married!

Posted by: otherpaul on January 21, 2008 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

Story off topic:

The angry white male voter was the stated reason the Democrats where swept out of Congress during the 1994 mid-term elections. It was said that they were tired of the welfare state and being discriminated against.

A few days later, I was in a neighborhood restaurant eating breakfast, when an older African-American woman wandered in. It was obvious that she was suffering from some kind of mental problem and was down on her luck. It was a self-serve restaurant, but she just sat in a booth and stared.

Finally, a blue-collar looking guy walked up to the counter, ordered and paid for a meal for her, and walked out the door. At the time I thought, “So much for the supposedly angry white male.”

Posted by: emmarose on January 22, 2008 at 12:51 AM | PERMALINK

I too have a dream & I`ve had it at least as long as Dr. King`s dream has been part of the political landscape in this country.

I dream of a day when what is between a person`s legs will be as irrelevant as the color of their skin and the only thing people will be interested in is how that person uses what`s between their ears.

I hope to live to see that day. So far it has taken far longer than I ever imagined it would. How about you folks start helpin me out on making it a reality ?

"If you think the world will be better because women are in charge then you don`t remember high school" - Madeleine Albright

Posted by: daCascadian on January 22, 2008 at 2:34 AM | PERMALINK

Sure, let the women have a crack at it, no pun intended. Personally, I don't think they'll be any better than the men, but it can't hurt to find out.

Posted by: Horatio Parker on January 22, 2008 at 9:12 AM | PERMALINK

A lot of fed-up females voted for W. Bush in 2004. It is doubtful a president Hillary will eleviate any frustration except gender humility. American females must become fed-up enough to abandon the lies of the two party system before the kind of change they want takes place.

Posted by: Brojo on January 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM | PERMALINK

Angry white males elected Ronald Reagan and the Bushes, 41 and 43. Does anyone think fed-up females can't do better?

Posted by: melissa on January 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin quotes Mary S: "As the angry white men shuffle off the stage, another revolution may be in the works — this one fed by the energy of the 'fed up female.'"

A friend of mine is a songwriter who recently attended a seminar in Nashville, on writing songs for the commercial country music market. She said that aspiring songwriters at the seminar were told that the target audience for commercial, radio-friendly country songs has changed dramatically, and what the industry is looking for in songs has changed accordingly.

Formerly, the target audience was white males drinking beer in a honky tonk and listening to songs on the juke box. Songs about gambling, drinking, cheating and so on were popular.

Today the target audience for country radio is women who have just dropped the kids off at school and are listening to the radio while on their way to work. They want to hear songs that reflect their day to day lives and struggles and hopes. They don't want to hear songs about guys gambling, drinking and cheating ... unless it's a song like the Dixie Chicks one about the gals who murdered the gambling, drinking cheating husband Earle and have his body in the trunk of the car.

In other words, the "fed up females" that Mary S. writes about are now the target audience for commercial country music radio. This is a big cultural shift for the "red state" regions of the US where country music radio is arguably as important as talk radio.

Someone once said "I care not who makes the laws of the nation, if I may make its songs."

Posted by: SecularAnimist on January 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM | PERMALINK

Ha ha, so in 2000 we were supposed to just ignore Joe Lieberman and the Clinton baggage Gore was carrying and vote Democratic, but now we're supposed to reject Hillary and choose Obama because, aside from lauding RR, Obama is ever so much more progressive.

Yeah, like I never heard that before.

The reality is that this country is long overdue for a female executive, and the way to solve that is to elect one. It's like growing up- you reach a point where the choice about how you cut the apron strings may not be perfect, but if you don't do something you're going to end up running the Bates Motel.

Get. A. Clue. The next president is not gong to inspire you or fulfill your fondest dreams. In fact, you're going to be disappointed and have your hopes dashed. If that isn't the case you will have become an android incapable of human emotions or reason- just look at the remaining Bush supporters.

And for all you Obama supporters, well, we had a governor in Washington State named Mike Lowry. He won office with a political machine that leaned heavily on black churches. In office he appointed a lot of illiterate fundamentalist members of his machine to state offices, and nothing says "we don't care" like a letter where they tell you they don't care and misspell the word 'care'. In a final touching episode of 'hoist on own petard' he was run out of office by accusations that he was too likely to put his arm around women's shoulders.

Well, be my guest- if the anti-Hillary people want to play the role of the Greens in the next election, at least we'll know who to blame when President McCain takes office.

Posted by: serial catowner on January 22, 2008 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK
a list of racially charged remarks made by Mark Penn, Bob Kerreyand Bill Shaheen ....Face it: the Clintons are confronted with the most talented politican since JFK. They roll the race card. DESPICALBLE. beth at 7:33 PM
Before you go uppercase, you should check out other news.

Barack Obama's Campaign Plays the Race Card...
The Obama campaign sent their national co-chair Jesse Jackson, Jr. to tear down Hillary Clinton on MSNBC the other night. He took it too far over the top. His comments on Hurricane Katrina seemed to indicate he was saying Hillary Clinton doesn't care about black people. It's one thing when Kanye West says that about George Bush, it's another when it's Obama's spokesperson saying it about Hillary Clinton. That is out of bounds....

Your claims that Clinton people were making 'racially charged' remarks is nonsense. Referencing Obama's own mention of his drug use is not racist and Kerry's remark was praise for Obama.

“The fact that he’s African American is a big deal. I do expect and hope that Hillary is the nominee of the party. But I hope he’s used in some way. If he happens to be the nominee of the party and ends up being president, I think his capacity to influence in a positive way without spending a penny the behavior of a lot of underperforming black youth today is very important, and he’s the only one who can reach them.”
Kerrey continued, “It’s probably not something that appeals to him, but I like the fact that his name is Barack Hussein Obama, and that his father was a Muslim and that his paternal grandmother is a Muslim. There’s a billion people on the planet that are Muslims and I think that experience is a big deal.” He added, “He’s got a whale of a lot more intellectual talent than I’ve got as well.”

Your use of the victimhood card when it isn't justified diminishes Obama.

Posted by: Mike on January 22, 2008 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Is Hillary supported by the corporate media because she is expected to be the easiest Democrat to defeat or because she is the most pro-corporate of the Democrats, or could it be a combination of both? Or is it something entirely different?

Kent made an interesting comment that the girls are now running everything in the highschool where he teaches. And it is estimated that in another few years two-thirds of college students will be female, which means there are going to be a great many angry, frustrated young men in the near future without careers or hope. They would make excellent cannon fodder, but, as Bush has changed the longstanding posse comitatus rule (forbidding the military from actions in the US), the possibility that such young men would enthusiastically support the military in a fascist cause should not be overlooked. And with Hillary as president, particularly if she does as expected and intensifies the gender wars, and thereby increase that anger and frustration even further, with so many willing pro-fascist military recruits it may be easier than most would think for certain elements of the corporate oligarchy to join with the military to execute a coup and institute a purely fascist state.

Just speculating... Social developments often lead to unexpected outcomes.

Posted by: jms on January 22, 2008 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter jms:

Hillary Wins = THE APOCALYPSE!!!

Really, the concern-troll misogyny in that post was just unbelievable.

Posted by: tam1MI on January 22, 2008 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

What's with this "silent generation" nonsense? We war babies were the hippies and revolutionaries of the '60s and early '70s. I was born in 1945 and was in my twenties and early thirties during this time.

Posted by: Katherine on January 22, 2008 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary is the best candidate and will win if you and the media keep up the attacks. As with all cultural groups the more bigotry and bias against them the more connected and protected they become of each other and I'm not talking about Obama here. I lived through the Bill Clinton Presidency and boy did I get messed up and our country went to hell! Right...Actually, I was pretty happy our family was able to live during a time of peace, good economic times and have a president that made a majority of us feel good about our country again. Under Bill there was never a feeling of fear or desperation. Today we live in a world of fear perpetrated by the people in charge. Hillary gets my vote not only because she has the "balls" to be president but more importantly, she had to endure the Republican attack machine at the end of the Clinton's presidency and, in retrospect, has earned it.

Posted by: lou who on January 23, 2008 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

I am confused about the reasoning that says "angry white makes" elected Reagan and Bush and now "angry females" will elect Hillary. Women have comprised a slim majority of the electorate for about 50 years. It wasn't just men who voted for Reagan and Bush, and even though there was a gender gap in the support that favored men, if no women had voted for them they would have lost.

So I think trying to parse it by gender is not accurate.

That said, I am not sure that having a female candidate excites women the same way that having an African-American candidate energizes blacks. Many women are critical of Hillary for a variety of reasons. She will have to earn votes, from women as well as men, not just get "gimmes" for being a woman.

Where was Hillary on the bankruptcy bill, which fell like a sledgehammer on a lot of hard up workers (largely female and underpaid)? Hint: she voted for it. I think Hillary is smart and capable but she triangulates to death, the way Bill taught her, and ultimately she appears not to stand for anything except getting power. This could hurt her.

Posted by: joanne on January 24, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly