Jackson Free Press

I've been having a little trouble believing that myself, but it's one of those media narratives that the cable channels can't let go. Frank Rich at the NYTimes goes ahead and looks at actual polling numbers (that wacky loon!) and notices that, in fact, Obama leading McCain with all woman, including white women (the outlier is "suburban white women" where he's down slightly). In addition, the worst news of recent polling for Obama is that he's down 20 point to McCain with white men. It so happens, though, that even in that case there's a silver lining -- that 20 points is not as far down as either Gore or Kerry ended up in 2000 and 2004.

And, beyond that, Obama is kicking McCain's butt in ALL other constituencies that the media has worried over during the primary. From the piece:

"NBC Nightly News" was so focused on these supposedly devastating Obama shortfalls that there was no mention that the Democrat beat Mr. McCain (and outperformed Mr. Kerry) in every other group that had been in doubt: independents, Catholics, blue-collar workers and Hispanics. Indeed, the evidence that pro-Clinton Hispanics are flocking to Mr. McCain is as nonexistent as the evidence of a female stampede. Mr. Obama swamps Mr. McCain by 62 percent to 28 percent — a disastrous G.O.P. setback, given that President Bush took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, according to exit polls. No wonder the McCain campaign no longer lists its candidate's home state of Arizona as safe this fall.

Rich also makes a nice point about the "angry white women" narrative in general -- it's sexist. Good points in this graf:

Now, there's no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton's narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became "angry white women" once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That's why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.

Previous Comments

ID

130831

Comment

It is sexist, and nonsensical, and I've had some pretty smart people say it to me. Amazing what people will repeat without thinking about it. There are other good statistics quoted in that Rich column as well. Looking good for Obama.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-15T15:31:26-06:00

ID

130832

Comment

There's no "angry white women" bloc, but there are definitely a small number of very influential older white feminists who are flipping to McCain or skipping the election due to the outcome of the presidential primary. Debra Bartoshevich, a Wisconsin Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention, just made history by being the first major-party delegate to publicly cross party lines when she announced that she was going to support McCain rather than Obama. Marcia Pappas of NYS-NOW, who described the Clinton-Edwards-Obama debate as "gang rape" and described Ted Kennedy as a betrayer of women when he endorsed Obama, recently suggested that women should leave the Democratic Party over Obama's nomination. Gloria Steinem, of all people, wrote a NYT op-ed indicating that sexism trumps racism, implied that Obama's appeal was sexist, and advocated Clinton's nomination on the basis of gender (though she has since endorsed Obama). Robin Morgan wrote a similar op-ed, but I don't know whether she has endorsed Obama or not. NOW-PAC has still not endorsed Obama, and its official position remains that Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee. And that's independent of what has happened behind closed doors and on the blogosphere and at conferences between some older white feminists and some younger white feminists, and feminists of color, over the Clinton-Obama race. So I'd say that while Obama is actually doing better among white women as a bloc than Kerry or Gore did at this point in their respective campaigns, there is a subset of Clinton supporters, a small non-representative group of white feminists over 60, who seem to be more serious about party-flipping than other party activists have been in the past when they didn't get the nominee they wanted. I don't think there are enough of these folks to impact the election, and they definitely shouldn't be presented (as they have been in the media) as representing all white women over a certain age or even all white feminists over a certain age...but there's very much a latter-years Elizabeth Cady Stanton vibe to the way a small number of very influential people have reacted to Obama's nomination. It's very ugly, and I'm afraid it has done some long-term damage to the feminist movement. That said, the vast majority of older white feminists, I am confident, support Obama over McCain any day of the week.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-15T17:10:21-06:00

ID

130843

Comment

It is ugly, and I can't imagine how those women think they are, uh, spreading the flame of feminism by acting like this. Ewwww. And that's coming from someone who isn't going to turn away from feminism because of a bunch of angry women who are trying to make us all look bad. I'm still a feminist, but not the kind that thinks I have to vote for a woman, any woman, regardless of what I think about her. That's not the kind of feminism I—and certainly many younger feminists—would ever get on board with. I'm quite confident that the young people and people of color (and/or) that Obama is bringing to the polls is going to more than balance out a bunch of stubborn old feminists who would vote against women's best interests because they are p!ssed their woman didn't make it. With due respect. How could you act more irrelevant?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-15T22:34:17-06:00

ID

130844

Comment

Oh and to Ms. Pappas ... way to insult every woman who has ever been actually raped. If I was still a member of NOW, I'd cancel my membership.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-06-15T22:35:37-06:00

ID

130846

Comment

Indeed. Judging by what Pappas has written, being raped is sort of like participating in a presidential debate. We had a very active and across-the-board amazing Jackson NOW chapter here in 2006-2007 led by Michelle Colón (mid-south regional NOW coordinator) and Shannan Reaze (Jackson NOW president), two amazing young women of color who have been my mentors and heroes in the movement and to a great extent activism in general. Our chapter was about two-thirds black with a median age of 30 or so. I didn't realize, until I saw photographs of all-white-and-gray teams from chapters in other areas, how unusual that was. When I looked at the representative photo for NOW-NYS' pro-Clinton team, for example, I saw nobody who looked like they were under 50 and nobody who was discernibly non-white. That seems to be the demographic norm for NOW chapters. NOW's reputation, with activists in more WOC-focused organizations like SisterSong and INCITE!, seems to be that of an aging and pretty much exclusively white organization. A crying shame, considering NOW's roots. One thing I will say in defense of NOW is that chapters are autonomous; Pappas is president of NOW-NYS, the largest NOW state organization in the country (with over 40,000 members), but she doesn't represent the NOW folks in other regions of the country. I don't know of any NOW person anywhere else who discussed this with me who wasn't horrified by her remarks, and even the national office put out a press release clarifying that she doesn't speak for NOW as a national organization after she put out the release bashing Ted Kennedy. But she was evidently in no danger of losing her presidency over the remarks, which is especially significant since Pappas is one of the very few state presidents who is actually paid. And she kept putting out bizarre press releases under the NOW-NYS banner (the "gang rape" one was in January; the one asking women to leave the Democratic Party was June 5th). The people who were running the NOW chapter here are gone now (which seems to happen to so many brilliant and courageous young activists in this state). But I do have to say to you, o vice-president of the Mississippi ACLU, that Shawna Davie has done a FANTASTIC job of taking on a leadership role and picking up the slack and coordinating the legislative response over the past year on women's issues. I'm sure you're already proud of her, but that's one more reason to be. While folks like Pappas focused on steering the feminist movement straight into the iceberg of identity politics, folks like Shawna have been out there getting sh!t done. And that's enough reason to have some hope for the future of our movement.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-15T23:51:03-06:00

ID

130964

Comment

What seems revealing . . . any feminist or supporter of women's rights, or human rights for that matter, who will vote for McCain cause Clinton lost to Obama demonstrate it's not about issues but about personality. Vote for McCain and you get more Scalias for the Supreme Court, an advocate to turn back Roe v. Wade, etc. etc. It kind of reminds me of my mother's saying about "cutting off your nose to spite your face" or however that goes. I don't get the logic.

Author

Robert Connolly

Date

2008-06-18T17:14:51-06:00

ID

130967

Comment

Robert, long time no see! How are you and Emma doing...? I would say that most people who say they'll vote for McCain now that Obama has the nomination would have voted for McCain if Clinton got the nomination, too. The Democrats had a more interesting presidential race and it drew more casual voters in. But for the folks who really are feminists who would vote for Obama over McCain, I would say the major concern of some of these folks is that they'd waited their entire adult lives for a viable female presidential candidate, finally got one, and then she was passed over in favor of someone who didn't emerge on the national scene until 2004. Candidates getting "their turn" is a big part of national politics--McCain is benefitting from the same phenomenon, as did John Kerry in 2004, as did Bob Dole in 1996--and it doesn't seem fair, I'm sure, for a woman to get passed over one more time in favor of a younger man who hasn't paid as many dues in the industry (in this case, as a national politician). At least McCain, it can be reasoned, has paid his dues. I think there's also a generational concern--Obama is a baby buster, not a baby boomer, and his election would mean that no real liberal of the 1960s generation ever served as president, unless we count Bill Clinton. An entire nation-transforming social movement coming to an end. It would have to feel like a memento mori. At least McCain, it can be reasoned, would not symbolically represent the end of baby boomer presidencies. There is also the possibility of petty racist motivation, of course, which we've already been over--Elizabeth Cady Stanton's opposition to the Fifteenth Amendment, based as it was on frustration over the idea that "'Sambo' will walk into the kingdom first" (as Stanton put it), the sense that if women cannot break the glass ceiling, no non-white men should be allowed to, either. But I don't know how common this sort of attitude is.

Author

Tom Head

Date

2008-06-18T18:47:19-06:00

ID

131006

Comment

Along the same line as the question posed by Itodd, someone sent me a letter by Tim Wise called "An Open Letter to Certain White Women Who are Threateneing to Withhold Support from Barack Obama in November." The author suggests, "Your Whiteness is showing." Needless to say, I'm too slow to post the letter here and hopefully some smart person interested in furthering a discussion on the subject will find it via the internet ans post it.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-19T11:37:55-06:00

ID

131021

Comment

I can not see how anyone with any sense would vote for Obama. He has changed his position (when he has one) and most recently over public financing. He agrees to take it during the primary but changes his mind after McCain commits. If people believe Obama will be a good president, then I would like to know what they have been smoking. He is too naive on international politics - prosecute terrorists, what a joke. They could care less about our laws, they would love to be in our prisons and enlisting the aid of those about to be released. Energy - it is a pipe-dream to think we can continue down the path the democrats are taking us. why do you think we can not refine the crude oil we have available or drill for more oil? Or built nuclear plants for electricity or clean-coal plants? Democrats and environmentalists won't let it happen. Look at the joke of a democrat led city and the poor condition our roads are in. What a joke the public transit system is here in Jackson. I have ridden public transit in Shreveport and it is a dream compared to what we have - service, buses, courtesy, routes. Obama is a 'post turtle' - not sure how he got there and what to do once he is there.

Author

no2obama

Date

2008-06-19T15:23:13-06:00

ID

131022

Comment

Look at the joke of a republican that led this country and the seemingly never end war across the seas when people here in his country are not feed, are homeless, are out of work, are dropping out of school, crime is up, teenage pregnancy is up, not to mention food and gas prices. McCain is representative of Bush term 3. If we let him in we will continue to fall as a nation. Obama may have his inconsistencies, but I'd take a gamble on his ability to figure it out and make good things happen, than I would taking a chance with another Bush term. I can not see how anyone with any good since would vote for man close to 100 years old to turn on a new face for this country especially when he mirrors the same FOOLISH ideas of the current president.

Author

Queen601

Date

2008-06-19T15:31:52-06:00

ID

131024

Comment

Sorry Queen, I can not depend upon Obama to 'figure it out'. If you look at McCain, he is not completely like Bush - yes, he wants to finish what we started in Iraq, if not, we will be back there. As for the economy, it is a weak dollar because everyone is buying overseas - look at all the stuff you bought recently and tell me what was made in the USA. As for the homeless, dropping out of school, crime - to blame the president is ludicrous. Better to blame the parents for not keeping kids in school and getting pregnant. As for crime in the city, how much is drug-related and have you turned in your neighborhood drug dealer? If a person is homeless, he has got problems - personal, spiritual - no government can fix. Give the man the tools to fix his life but stop enabling them by giving them everything they need. I do not give to the homeless but donate to Stewpot and the Salvation Army so the person who really wants to change can. Stop falling for the lies about Obama, he has yet to answer the hard questions. As for healthcare, look at the problems in Canada and the UK if you want his resolution. Energy, you and I will be paying $10/gal for gas after he gets in office - if we can get it - his plan for energy has so many holes, it leaks like a sieve. Obama is just too young and inexperienced for the position. He has yet to produce a major piece of legislation on his own. He has yet to come up with any good ideas of his own. Think about that for awhile and let me know why Obama would be good....except for 'we need to change'.

Author

no2obama

Date

2008-06-19T16:03:20-06:00

ID

131028

Comment

Queen, don't fret. Obama is doing a wonderful job and will win. No amount of bull will be enough to stop him. Let's join hands and ignore the crap. Sean Hannity has changed his name and is roaming.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-19T17:09:19-06:00

ID

131033

Comment

Frankly, I'm surprised republicans have just started the bull about domestic oil drilling as desperate as they now are these days. Hell, I already knew they hated the enviroment, non-republicans, God, good people, trees, clean air, parks, rivers, screams, etc. Once George Bush was informed of the astronomical price of a barrel of gas/oil in the "country", he asked how much is it in the "city" then.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-19T17:37:05-06:00

ID

131034

Comment

Walt, Republicans care about the environment as much or more than democrats, we are just realists to the fact we need to produce more at home rather than sending our money overseas. For every dollar sent overseas, buying oil, clothes, shoes, etc, it is another dollar taken out of our economy. As I asked Queen, when was the last time you looked at where something was made before you bought it? I do not want the drilling anymore than most except the landowners will get royalties and they will spend it or save it to make our country better. Where is the petrodollar going you send to Saudi Arabia or Venezuela? Surely not to help our country. McCain wants to increase nuclear plants, they are safely used all over the world. How much energy will they produce and reduce pollution? I keep looking for a feasible fuel-cell car/truck and will get one. Obama does not have a realistic energy policy, yes, I have read it. It is pie in the sky, no hope of realization in my lifetime. Until their are truly alternative fuels available, oil is going to be our biggest need. Along with the thousands of other things made with oil...how much oil was used to produce that Styrofoam cup you threw away after drinking your coffee?

Author

no2obama

Date

2008-06-19T17:47:57-06:00

ID

131038

Comment

Both sides are much more concerned with scoring political points than creating a sound energy policy. Meanwhile they are sacrificing our national security the longer we go without a compromise.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-19T19:04:40-06:00

ID

131042

Comment

YestoObama (your new name for me since I can't say no to Obama)I like your commentary and good writing but not your name. Republicans do not care about the enviroment and the record is clear on that as evidenced by the appointment of leaders of the enviromental protection agency and their goals/legacies. Only Nixon seeminly gave a darn out of 2 Bushes and 1 Reagan. Republicans might have cared about the enviroment once upon a long time ago. I know you're not arguing this president Bush has shown any evidence of caring about the enviroment? The record is too replete with evidence to the contrary. YestoObama, don't you know the domestic drilling issue as it's being used now is nothing more than game-playing. I'm not even greatly against any such move but I object to the game playing at this time. Republicans have no shame and will use race, war, oil, gas, God, sex, etc. to get an advantage and 4 more years to screw the people and country. I'm surprised they haven't used the tooth ferry and santa claus yet as scare tactics.

Author

Walt

Date

2008-06-20T08:14:07-06:00

ID

131060

Comment

As for the economy, it is a weak dollar because everyone is buying overseas - look at all the stuff you bought recently and tell me what was made in the USA. Bush's foreign and economic policies are the reason our dollar is weak. You can argue the right or wrong of those policies, but it's intellectually dishonest to overlook that his actions have weakened the USD. And while we Americans may buy a lot of foreign goods, thanks to Bush and the Republicons the weakened dollar is allowing foreign investors to gobble up valuable American businesses and real estate, which is NOT a good sign.

Author

Jeff Lucas

Date

2008-06-20T12:41:50-06:00