Hillary Supporters Vow They Won't Vote for Barack

"I refuse to be associated with a party that is stupid, self-destructive and undemocratic, and now, I'm beginning to realize, is misogynistic," said Norma Broude, an American University professor who was among more than 1,000 Clinton supporters at a "count the vote" rally at Rock Creek Park.

Friend and fellow American University professor Mary Garrard agreed, saying that she will not vote for Mrs. Clinton's rival, Sen. Barack Obama, if he receives the party's presidential nomination.

"The Democratic Party has disdained the female demographic, they have demeaned Hillary Clinton, and this time we're not going to roll over," Ms. Garrard said.

At last, something that trumps abortion rights for feminist voters:  HURT FEELINGS!

The Democratic Party's ability to throw away a sure thing continues to amaze . . . and amuse.

Comments

[Peter Hoh]

Hillary Clinton could have prevented this sense of outrage among her supporters, but instead she has encouraged it.

Reap and sow.

I've been praying for the implosion of both parties. We're getting there.

[Pribek]

I wonder sometimes. I watched parts of the D.N.C. show yesterday with fascination. It was emotionally charged. In the end, the door was left open for, at least, continued discussion.
I have to wonder that it wouldn't be a negative for this to end up in a gut wrenching, cathartic convention that ends with the unity theme.
If, at the end of a process, you can isolate a true objection-all you have to do is overcome that one, true objection. And, if that objection is "hurt feelings" all you have to do is appease an emotion.
If the Democratic Party, has an "historic", emotionally charged convention that ends in unity, they are the equivalent of a baseball team suddenly hitting on all cylinders a week before the playoffs.

[wj]

Let me see if I'm following this. If the members of a party vote for someone who is not a member of a particular group (any group), then they are necessarily doing so from distain for that "demographic." The fact that they simply prefer the positions/style/character of a different individual couldn't possibly by involved. It's really, really sad to see people who are so self-involved. (Naturally they don't see that, strictly on their own logic, failing to nominate a black candidate would have indicated a racist distain for the black demographic.)

I am reminded of a really cogent comment. (It's from sports, but not about sports. Still, sorry, Annie!) Years ago, Frank Robinson became the first black head coach of a major league baseball team. But that wasn't the signal that blacks were being treated equally and getting the job on merit. No, what really established that was a couple of years later when he got fired. That was when it was clear that he was being treated just like any other individual who was a coach.

Similarly, a case could be made that Senator Clinton's treatment establishes that women are now getting equal treatment by the Democratic Party: she was taken seriously as a candidate, certainly more seriously than some of the men who were running. But someone else was selected, simply because he ran a better campaign than she did.

P.S. Suppose a lot Clinton fanatics really do vote for Senator McCain out of spite -- as their chants of "McCain! McCain!" at the RBC suggest some might. If enought do so to swing the election, McCain will have to count himself the luckiest politician since Senator Boxer (who manages to keep winning elections because the California Republicans persist in nominating extremist nut-jobs to run against her).

[amba]

Pribek: that would be ideal for them (sort of like the huge, knockdown, dragout fight that saves a marriage), but it's a big chance to take!

WJ: I totally agree. She failed on her own merits! And in doing so, I really think she blazed a trail for women. She was plausibly presidential, one could imagine her in the office -- and just not want her in it, as an individual. In that respect, I think she did smash a barrier.

[Pribek]

"that would be ideal for them (sort of like the huge, knockdown, dragout fight that saves a marriage), but it's a big chance to take!"

I'm not thinking that this is smoke filled room strategy more like the hand may fall this way. And, if it does, it's possible for the Party to capitalize.

A group of people, sharing an emotional response...well, see Edward Bernays.

There is plenty of time to win an election after a convention. Seems like people forget that.

[Ruth Anne]

Voters to Hillary: We're just not that into you?

[Meade]

"The Democratic Party has disdained the female demographic, they have demeaned Hillary Clinton, and this time we're not going to roll over," Ms. Garrard said

Why not? After all, you did it for her husband in '98. What's the big diff?

[wj]

Pribek, sure, there's lots of time after the convention to win the election. But. People are perfectly capable of working themselves into such a state that they lock in their emotions for the long term.

At which point, it is no longer possible to win them over -- and the election, at least for them, is already decided. Which is actually the concern for Democrats here. If feminists get their emotions locked into resentment of Obama, they may end up swinging the election to someone who is staunchly anti-abortion rights, and otherwise committed to positions that they, as feminists, claim to abhor.

Take gun rest. LSecure onto knee. Thus avoid any chance of missing foot when you fire. Brilliant!

[Rod]

The vast majority of the resentment will go away when Hillary stands on the stage at the end of the convention, hands raised, with the Illinois Senator she has graciously endorsed for President. Misogynism will be blamed on the press. After all, where is a feminist going to go? McCain hardly supports the agenda.

The wild card is if McCain selects a woman for Vice President. Then the angry, disappointed Clinton supporters will still have an opportunity to vote their chromasomes.

[Pribek]

wj,

"If feminists get their emotions locked into resentment of Obama"

I think that there is some territory between "hurt feelings" and true resentment and, overcoming hurt feelings is something that can be done.

[wj]

Quite true. But I have the suspicion that those at the RBC meeting who were moved to start chanting "McCain! McCain!" are a bit beyond mere hurt feelings. Of course, I might be wrong. And there is no way to tell yet how many of them there might be. Still....

[Pribek]

to me wj, somebody reacting vocally like that, with a threat, sounds exactly like someone with hurt feelings. Like they are wanting to be addressed.

[Donna B.]

I just spent the weekend with my family in SW Arkansas, a county that went for Kerry in 2004, and where most of my relatives are life-long Democrats.

The discussion was mostly about voting Republican for the first time in their lives if Obama gets the nomination and it's all about religion.

These gun and religion clinging Democrats are completely repulsed by Rev. Wright and his message and having gone to church all their lives, are unwilling to forgive Obama for even joining that church.

Several of them said outright that "you can't find Jesus Christ" by immersing yourself in the hate of any other human regardless of color.

Granted, it's a small sample, but I was really quite amazed at the disappointment expressed.