Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Or Maybe It's Possible That Women Have Opinions, Vote on Issues

1

Now YOU'RE reading Sullivan? What the hell is wrong with you people?

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 9, 2008 11:32 AM
2

Maybe it wasn't sympathy, ECB, but a recognition that the woman actually, for a brief and shining moment, could be a PERSON, and not a poll-driven, caculating, scripted Dem-Bot? And people could actually vote for a PERSON (like they did with passion in Iowa for Obama, that he was fiery passionate feeling human being, not a self-aggrandizing, single-issue self-promoter like some (rightly or wrongly) believed Jesse Jackson to be). Perhaps the issue isn't gender, it's sincerity?

Posted by andy niable | January 9, 2008 11:34 AM
3

I read Sullivan, Poe. He's a very entertaining, writhing work-in-progress, and sometimes can make interesting (if self-contradictory) points, from month to month. He went from Bushie to Obamaton in a matter of months, and the metamorphosis was hilarious. Sometimes he's the Chris Crocker of the Log Cabin Republicans.

So are you advocating ONLY reading people who agree with you?

Posted by andy niable | January 9, 2008 11:37 AM
4

Quote (the asshole) Sullivan all you want but DON'T call him a liberal blogger.

Sullivan = typical gay republican

Posted by monkey | January 9, 2008 11:39 AM
5

ECB, you know as well as I do that we women don't have brains. We don't care about ISSUES. We just hate to see another woman cry. If we could, we'd all help Hillary cry and wash that man (Obama) out of her hair.

Posted by arduous | January 9, 2008 11:42 AM
6

Yes, call him "Paleocon" (as he terms himself, I believe). Or, UK born, "Brit-Con"? Or "Glibertarian"?

Posted by andy niable | January 9, 2008 11:42 AM
7

@3

"Sometimes he's the Chris Crocker of the Log Cabin Republicans."

All the more reason to hate his guts.

"So are you advocating ONLY reading people who agree with you?"

No. I read Ann Coulter all of the time, and own every one of her books.

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 9, 2008 11:44 AM
8

did you listen to the voters interviewed on NPR this morning? did you hear them discussing the issues?

NO.

Posted by cochise. | January 9, 2008 11:46 AM
9

So, Poe, "what the hell is wrong with (us)" for reading Sullivan? Explain.

Posted by andy niable | January 9, 2008 11:46 AM
10


If Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I'll cry...in public...everywhere.

I'm a lifelong liberal Dem, and I will *NEVER* vote for her. Why should I vote for someone who's going to betray everything that I believe in--isn't that what we have Republicans for??

Posted by Original Andrew | January 9, 2008 11:48 AM
11

well, i saw Terry McCauliffe refer to her choking up as a "humanizing moment" that helped undecideds break for his boss. this IS how (some) voters make decisions.

and you bet your ass the Clinton campaign knows that.

Posted by max solomon | January 9, 2008 11:49 AM
12

And where, exactly, do any of these imply that what they're discussing is the "only thing" that turned women out? They're trying to suss out the determining factor, or one among many. None of them say this was the only factor. I mean, give me a break. They can't discuss anything else besides women having ideas and voting on the issues? Are no other factors allowed? These people are trying to work out what happened, not what should have happened, or what we would have liked to have happened. It's really ludicrous to ascribe these discussions to sexism. You find what you seek.

And no, I'm in no way discounting or denying the many sexist attacks Clinton has withstood during this campaign. I just don't think this is one of them. And really, in your last paragraph, you admit that you yourself felt sympathy in the same way that all these guys are describing. You're whole argument hinges on them saying this was "the only thing." They didn't say that.

Posted by Sigh | January 9, 2008 11:50 AM
13

yeah, i think it's pretty sick the way the media has treated her - and let's not leave michelle malkin out here; she's been as bad if not worse to hillary than any male media figure - and i can't stand her.

forget about the wrinkles and the cleavange and the "breakdown". there are plenty of legitimate reasons to attack her. why does everyone forget that her and her husband are corrupt, lying crooks? that whole "right wing conspiracy" thing was disproven a decade ago, thank you.

Posted by brandon | January 9, 2008 11:53 AM
14

Sullivan is a conservative tool. A big old war supporter who loathes Hillary Clinton just as much as he loathes Bill. That is the only reason he is supporting Obama, the only reason he penned that piece in the Atlantic Monthly. He actually defended loony Ron Paul after his racist newsletter was published.

Call him many things, but a liberal blogger he is not. Slog loves him cuz of his anti muslim rants. Plain and simple. Same reason yall love that tool Hitchens.

Also did yall see Chris Mathews rant?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zODHaIDfPXU

Posted by SeMe | January 9, 2008 11:54 AM
15

@11-- agreed, but I think she gets ONE of these "emo-ments" (she didnt actually cry, after all, she got choked up). If she does it AGAIN, one of two things (or both) will happen--she'll be painted as weak (if people think it was sincere the second time), or they'll think her a calculating actress (if they don't buy it a second time) and won't trust her. Either way, as a political event, she better not repeat it.

I say all this not because I myself don't want a candidate (or even a President, ala "feel your pain" Bill Clinton) who can FEEL, but as a political reality (witness how it destroyed candidate Muskie in 72 and how candidate Patricia Schroeder was roundly mocked for weeping when she ENDED her political run for President. Politics is mean.

Posted by andy niable | January 9, 2008 11:56 AM
16

I completely agree with you, Erica. Hil's "emotional breakdown" or whatever-the-fuck the media calls it may have bagged her a few sympathy points among Dems in general, but I doubt that it had the effect that these bloggers attribute to it. Their assertions are pure sensationalism, taking an event that was already blown out of proportion and piling even more bullshit on top of it - you see this type of thing everyday in the MSM.

Posted by Hernandez | January 9, 2008 11:57 AM
17

The only people who read Andrew Sullivan are liberals who are fascinated and slightly horrified that gay conservatives exist.

The Country Club Republicans probably think he's a double agent while the Jayzus Club Republicans think he's a demon-witch. No actual conservatives give a damn what he thinks on account of Hell-bound gayness.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 9, 2008 12:01 PM
18

@12: Soon you'll see this is how all of ECB's posts go. It's no use trying to talk sense to her - I think it's her job to be a contrarian whiner. It's easy enough if she doesn't get her way - anyone who's been a child knows how to be a brat. But if she gets her way she's pissed about the process or how the process might conceivably be received by gay male bloggers (above), or simply rubs the other side's nose in it (see Prop 1).

Soon, you'll either choose to ignore or provoke her. I'm still on the fence. But rational, pragmatic thought about relevant issues? You're better off talking to Charles Mudede.

Posted by Ziggity | January 9, 2008 12:02 PM
19

@14--Sullivan is not supporting Obama just because he hates Hillary. He's positively in love with O, and has drunk the KoolAid. It's not just contrarianism, and his enthusiastic post-after-post proves it.

He WAS a big-old war supporter (and has yet to completely apologize for it to all those he tarred and feathered for being against it from the start), but he's made it clear how much of a disaster he considers it now. Give him credit for that.

He's loathed Hillary going way back (he was behind the New Republic coverstory that many credit with starting the avalanche against her original attempt to reform health care). He held his nose and supported (very tepidly) Kerry only because of Bush's rapid anti-gay bating and the torture issue, but he's embraced Obama with such flourish that he's been mocked and rebuked by many of his "conservative" fellow bloggers.

Agree or disagree with him, he's a fiercely independent thinker.

Posted by andy niable | January 9, 2008 12:02 PM
20
The Carpetbagger Report, Kos, and other supposedly liberal male bloggers

Supposedly? So you're kicking them out of the clubhouse now?

What's your explanation for the sudden significant disparity between the polls of 24 hours before and the results, then?

Posted by tsm | January 9, 2008 12:10 PM
21

Sigh: I guess I'll find discussions of "why the laydeez turned out for Clinton" more germane when the media starts reporting on MALE turnout as if men had a single monolithic hivemind, too. Or, hey, even analyzing the reasons for male turnout at all.

Posted by ECB | January 9, 2008 12:11 PM
22

The MSM has a really hard time trying to construct a narrative for Clinton's win because they are unable to represent a woman's perspective.

Women are represented as "other", a subset, a specialty, a deviance from the norm, even after the rise of feminism. The MSM describes the affinity NH women feel with Clinton by trying to describe it using traditionally female gendered symbols(sympathy, emotional, crying, etc.), in other words, by trying to present them in the "other" category.

Contrast that with George Bush's appeal to male voters, where traditionally male genderd symbols, like strength, decisiveness, pick-up trucks, etc. can be presented without having to refer to them as specifically male, as they have been considered "normal" for so long, there is no need to qualify their statements.

Hence, the MSM can't descibe why NH women turned out for Clinton without being patronizing and misogynist. Having a woman as President for eight years is going to really help to educate the MSM on how to talk about women in positions of power, and about fucking time too.

Posted by gavingourley | January 9, 2008 12:11 PM
23

@21 - Have you forgotten about "NASCAR dads"? Or the legendary "Angry White Male"?

Posted by tsm | January 9, 2008 12:13 PM
24

Oh, and for the record: I don't read Sullivan. I just clicked on his link on "Friends of Slog."

Posted by ECB | January 9, 2008 12:14 PM
25

The ladies, they get worked up. I think it's because of the menses.

Hillary will just cry and cry if she doesn't get her way. That's the way they do it. Unless they get all catty and have a catfight, in which case you get to see panties, and maybe a bra.

Posted by tee hee, I said panties.... | January 9, 2008 12:17 PM
26

This race has been more about how we see our "national personality" at this time than anything else.

Issues? Even if you could differentiate Clinton's health care plan from Obama's, you'd be a fool to think either plan will come through as planned after the election.

The question for our primary: Do we give the boomers another shot or are we ready for the post-AIDS, post cold-war generation to take a shot?

I don't know my own answer to that question.

Posted by six shooter | January 9, 2008 12:18 PM
27

I think a big part of any and all the rushes to sort out what the crucial factor (as if there was one) was that shifted things over to Clinton -- besides some potential sexism -- is the pathological tendency among pundits to always appear that they know what is going on, that they have THE explanation for why things are happening the way they are. Whatever appears to be the simplest -- or sometimes more provocative and potentially rhetorically-loaded -- reason is what they all tend to go for, with minor shadings to make their take seem original. It's a lot easier than admitting that things are more complicated than polls or the "conventional wisdom" suggests. Pundits are rarely more than a step ahead of all us regular folks, the only real difference is that they sometimes have access that we don't to politicians, government officials, corporate types, whomever, is involved in the story of the day. But this frequently ends up leading them to accept the narratives of those same folks, who are obviously making themselves available in the interest of swaying public opinion their way. And polls only reflect what people are willing to tell pollsters at a given point in time. We need to remind ourselves that they are all -- pundits, bloggers, pollsters -- people. I'm actually glad that things are not going exactly the way polls suggest; it means that maybe this time around, people won't simply see the election as a choice of which bandwagon to join (even as that could be useful as a strategic decisions), but who they actually want to vote for, for whatever reason. I eagerly look forward to more things not turning out the way they are expected. That said, I also think that sexist stuff (and racist stuff too) among the punditocracy needs to be called out.

Posted by bookworm | January 9, 2008 12:19 PM
28

@22--agreed, the MSM has difficulty dealing with ANY group in the 2.5 minutes or less of time they devote to any "issue." Women, Blacks, Gays, Seniors, they interview one or two people, who get about a sentence, and then extrapolate as if each group acts in borg-like fashion... then get a bonus follow-up story when said group does "surprising" (complex) things. Consider the A.D.D. audience they serve, and consider it par for the course.

All hail the internets, land of in-depth, wordy, polemic!

Posted by andy niable | January 9, 2008 12:19 PM
29

the media treats everyone like packs of like-minded demographic drones. it's so much easier that way.

treating women as a monolithic voting bloc is nothing new; they're definitely getting a lot more scrutiny this time around because there is "one of them" on the ballot, so it fits neatly into the narrative. i'm listening to NPR right now - they're doing the same thing with teh blackz.

Posted by brandon | January 9, 2008 12:20 PM
30

@21 - The monolithic "youth" turned out for Obama in Iowa.

The candidates and the pundits would like to reduce individuals into groups to make them easier to court and easier to predict.

No one cares why Erica does anything unless 1000 of people like Erica can be counted upon to do the same thing.

Posted by six shooter | January 9, 2008 12:22 PM
31

@24 - yeah and for the record i don't smoke pot, i just load a bowl and flick my bic.

Posted by bubba | January 9, 2008 12:23 PM
32

People in this country--men and women both--tend to vote with their hearts, not their heads. I wish it wasn't true, but it is. Hillary pulled those heart strings, and she won. Not to say her wet eyes were staged...I don't buy that for a second. But it was well-timed.

Posted by Matthew | January 9, 2008 12:25 PM
33

@21 Sigh: I guess I'll find discussions of "why the laydeez turned out for Clinton" more germane when the media starts reporting on MALE turnout as if men had a single monolithic hivemind, too. Or, hey, even analyzing the reasons for male turnout at all.

well, the talk *before* NH was that men wouldn't vote for for a woman who cried. (go ask edwards.)

people were saying it was sexist to say that her eyes welling up was an issue. people clearly felt it there were sexist attacks happening. so it became an issue, and as an issue it had to have influence. people had to consider the sexist attacks against hillary, to look the other way (completely) would be irresponsible. disclaimer: not to say it was the only issue.


Posted by infrequent | January 9, 2008 12:32 PM
34

@ #24: Not friend of Slog. Friend of Dan. Maybe there should be a 3rd list. His, Theirs, and Ours.

Posted by monkey | January 9, 2008 12:35 PM
35

oh, and i took supposedly liberal to be an appropriate cut given ECB was taking these bloggers to task for what would appear to be a very unliberal view: that women don't have opinions on issues and only vote from the heart.

personally, i think most people do only vote from the heart, or at least not on issues. GWB is proof of the strange intersection of issues and likability that got the vote.

Posted by infrequent | January 9, 2008 12:37 PM
36

In the end, aren't people happy that the MSM has yet another chance to start discussing the actual policy differences and views of the candidates, instead of telling us who they pre-selected for us to vote for?

I mean, seriously. Do I need to read yet another article - something like two-thirds of all articles - that talks about who's on first, who's on second, etc?

We want info. We want the media to report.

How hard is that to GET?

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 9, 2008 12:37 PM
37

@29

so does hillary?

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/coalitions/womenforhillary/

i really would like my male leaders campaign kit.

Posted by cochise. | January 9, 2008 12:38 PM
38

Yes, this "crying" explanation is sexist. It wasn't crying. It was a humanizing moment -- but that's the point. For weeks the media elite has criticized Hillary for not showing emotion, then when she does, they jump on her dismissibvely.

They even discussed whether her emotions were "real" or manipulative.

When Huckabee plays Mustang Sally, or makes a joke about how big the White House is, or how he pardoned Ketih Ricahrds, it's referred to as commendable bonding with voters. When Hillary makes a self deprecating joke ("that hurt my feelings but I'll try to go on") it's reported as an "emotional" moment ("HRC said her feelings were hurt"). Then they refer to her eyes tearing up as "crying" which it wasn't.

Before she was too automaton, now she's too emotional. Typical woman!

The worse offender is Chris Matthews (who BTW has totally emotional reactions to Hillary all the time).

Ifnored as explanations of NH women's votes were their consdierations of HRC's qualifications, experience, program, her political savvy in adjusting her campiagn to be more accessible, and her and Bill's arguments about Obama's substantive positions.
Men who are emotional are appropriately sensitive, women are criticized as manipulative or too emotional, inherently "other." @22 -- right on.

Posted by Cleve | January 9, 2008 12:52 PM
39

Watching white male after white male opine on the news last night about Clinton's victory brought home what a good old boys club the media and the power elite in this country are.

Every time ECB posts a strong opinion on Slog there is a certain tone to many of the responses that I don't see with male posters. I disagree with ECB on several issues as I do with Josh and Dan, but I am always disgusted with the personal attacks she gets.

The Republican party would like us to believe that racism doesn't exist anymore so they don't have to deal with it as an issue. But nobody seems to want to talk about sexism--hence meaningless terms like post-feminism.

Hillary might not be my choice based on the issues. But I don't really know what Obama stands for other than "change". And Edwards seems to come to many of his current stands from political opportunism--his Senate record didn't reflect them. Yet I have to believe the transformative power of having a woman run the country would affect the future of this country far more than any of the good ol' boys.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | January 9, 2008 1:04 PM
40

I blame Hillary's victory on a spontaneous, state-wide hot flash.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 9, 2008 1:10 PM
41

Because men never react when phallic symbols of masculinity - NASCAR, fighter jets, guitars - are flashed in front of them? No men have barely disguised sexual crushes on Obama or McCain or Bush*? right? no never seen that! Men are always completely rational and issue based about any political decision.

What's that issue is Obama COMPLETELY different than Clinton again?

*Two worst offenders, of course, Sullivan and Matthews.

Posted by anna | January 9, 2008 1:28 PM
42

Man, first you want to play I'm-the-real-victim-here with hurricane Katrina victims, and now you want to make life just a little harder for people with mental disabilities.

If something you disagree with is "retarded" as you call it, then it shouldn't be that difficult for you, not being "retarded", to provide a real argument for what you disagree with, instead of just name calling.

Posted by elenchos | January 9, 2008 1:30 PM
43

@41 -

Because men never react when phallic symbols of masculinity - NASCAR, fighter jets, guitars - are flashed in front of them?

I think many do, yes. Anyone who would claim that men's voting decisions are inherently rational is a fool. Would you insist that no analogous cheap emotional triggers could possibly exist for large numbers of American women? Because that's what ECB seems to be arguing.

Posted by tsm | January 9, 2008 1:36 PM
44

I wanna kickass President who's not afraid to blow things up and kick ass!

USA!USA!USA!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 9, 2008 1:50 PM
45

And another thing, too:

I wanna President who won't take my guns away!

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 9, 2008 1:56 PM
46
What's that issue is Obama COMPLETELY different than Clinton again?

Ooooh, ooooh! I know, I know! It's that whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing that's been going on for the past 20 years.
Posted by Mike of Renton | January 9, 2008 1:57 PM
47

I think I just watched the video of her "emotional meltdown."

If I actually saw what everyone's been talking about, we really need to run our entire national and local news media through a wood-chipper and start all over again.

Posted by NapoleonXIV | January 9, 2008 2:10 PM
48

Sure. The issues. Women voted for Hillary because they like her voting for the Kyl amendment which paves the way for an Iran invasion. Chicks dig war, there's no doubt about it. They also like how she influenced Bill to eliminate welfare and sign Nafta. Plus they like how much influence Hillary had on how Wal-Mart deals with its suppliers and workers, back when she was a director. Because low prices matter more to women than how workers are treated.

Posted by get real | January 9, 2008 2:25 PM
49

I always like to think that racists are correct in what they say about whatever group they're being racist against. The only problem with their viewpoint is that those things they say are true about everyone, not just the racial group they're targeting. Ditto for sexists.

NOBODY IN AMERICA VOTES ON ISSUES. NOT WOMEN, NOT MEN, NOT BLACK PEOPLE, NOT WHITE PEOPLE.

They really don't. Or if they do, they vote on the basis of some issue that's utter bullshit, like taking people's rights away (gays and women being the big targets these days). They seem to always be really in favor of that.

Posted by John | January 9, 2008 3:45 PM
50

Nobody, John?

Are you saying Kucinich voters don't vote?

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 9, 2008 4:34 PM
51

Kucinich and Nader voters go the way they do because they hate their parents.

Posted by Greg | January 11, 2008 8:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).