aimai at If I Ran the Zoo:
I ... wish that bloggers and Obama supporters would remember that the morning after the Democratic convention they are going to wake up in bed with a lot of people they've been calling ugly, and we will all be quite sober enough to be really, really, angry about it. ...
At this point the campaign to control the meaning of the campaign seems to me to be utterly focused on demonizing Clinton and her supporters by continuously transforming ordinary political acts into extra-ordinary forms of evil, anti democratic, selfishness. ...
... Obama's desires and actions are seen as unselfish because they are undertaken, we are assured, *for us* rather than for Obama. The more of "us" there are, therefore, the more unselfish Obama's actions become because the responsibility for them is shared among many. By contrast, if you believe (as many of Obama's supporters do as an article of faith) that Hillary represents a small number of deluded or angry or old line female supporters, well, her actions are deemed the more selfish because either she represents only herself or the voters she represents are too insignificant to dissipate the selfishness of her actions. ...
As far as I can see Hillary's time has come and gone and she will go down to defeat and Obama will be the nominee. I don't quarrel with that and I don't even think its a bad thing for the party or the country. But there is something deeply disingenous about reading popular democratic bloggers and progressive bloggers continually smearing both Hillary and her voters when you know that tomorrow they are going to wake up in bed next to them and need to start pleading for understanding and forgiveness. And not only that, they are going to ask us to get up and make breakfast for them.
It ’s not the unfairness of media coverage alone that sways me, it’s the pervasive unfairness in the way that high-achieving women are treated and perceived more generally. Many of us can point to instances in our own workplaces in which highly qualified women have been passed over in favor of less-qualified men, whose very maleness grants them authority that women have to work twice as hard to earn. The anger at that unfairness builds up, and the attacks on Clinton tap into it. It reminds me that Clinton has had to be tough as nails to make it this far, and I respect that about her.
Personally, I would be happy if either Obama or Clinton is elected in the primary. I think they each have strengths and weaknesses, and either should rightfully crush McCain in the general election. If I thought Obama was a vastly superior candidate I would vote for him. But, it ’s a toss-up for me, and the incessant Clinton-bashing pushes me to vote for her in the PA primary. The vote would not be because I feel sorry for her -- that indeed would be a terrible reason to vote for someone. Rather, the bashing reminds me of her toughness, and it also reminds me that there are a lot of bastards out there and it would do some good to see a woman stick it to them.
When it looked like Obama was going to get screwed by the Clintons' race-baiting, a lot of people talked about how much hard feelings it would engender against Hillary and how black voters would stay home in the fall. What people don't seem to be seeing is that white women are feeling very resentful about seeing Hillary being demonized, but they are much, much quieter about it. Black men who are hoping against hope that Obama is the nominee really don't seem to be seeing it, or they don't care, or worse, they're happy to "stick it" to the white candidate. Yet the anger is still real. A bunch of clueless male Democrats are indeed going to go nuts if/when Obama is nominated and then be all like, "What's wrong with you?" to the women in their life when they don't clap for the Man. Which will not help.
Finally got round to reading Blink by Malcolm Gladwell. He gives an entire chapter to the Warren Harding error:
They were behaving just like the voters did in the 1920 presidential election when they took one look at Warren Harding, jumped to a conclusion, and stopped thinking. ... their error gave them one of the worst US presidents ever.
Sen Obama certainly looks a lot like the first black president of the United States, at least as much as Harding looked like a generic US president. The continual demands that Obama be judged by different standards from other candidates tend to make the Warren Harding bell ring louder.
Posted by: Alan | February 17, 2008 at 02:12 AM
Well, I don't agree with that. You can make the right choice for the wrong reason, if in this case some of Obama's supporters are for him for the wrong reason. But Obama isn't Harding. Objective observers who have analyzed his personnel choices and his policy positions place him at a more conservative point on the spectrum than his supporters may believe, but he's hardly unfit for the job because of that. He's not of limited intelligence or education like Harding. And there is no reason to believe that he's being elevated to the job because of cronyism. No, malaprops and all, if there is a modern analogue to Harding, it's Bush.
Posted by: Mithras | February 17, 2008 at 10:03 AM
I'm not suggesting Obama is Harding, (the Bush analagy is much truer, except that it would be hard to argue that Bush is a better president than Harding was) but the decision process that some of Obama's supporters have adopted seems to be a lot like the process Harding supporters used. It's even possible to find arguments that the change Obama proposes does not need analysing because Obama is change. That's mysticism, rather than politics.
Posted by: Alan | February 18, 2008 at 01:07 AM
I'm a white woman, and I can certainly understand the perspective related by Mrs. Noz above: The sexist attacks on Clinton irritate me as well.
I will happily vote for whichever one is nominated too. However, since it's not a toss-up for me -- I do see Obama as the better candidate -- I'm pulling for him to win the nomination.
You are right to express concern about the demonization going on with both sides. I'm worried about that too. But I'm hoping it's more a hotheaded blogger phenomenon than a general view.
Posted by: Betty Cracker | February 18, 2008 at 07:31 AM
Pretty much sums up my reaction. I'll vote for Obama if he wins, but only for the sake of the Supreme Court. Will I send him money? Probably not. Will I encourage readers to work for him? Probably not.
After all, I'm a middle-aged white woman who's been told to shut up and sit in the back of the bus. Yes, Mr. Kos!
Posted by: Susie from Philly | February 18, 2008 at 12:12 PM