...the women who are angry about the way that Clinton was treated during the campaign, and about Obama's silence...are not under any illusions that John McCain is better on women's issues than Obama would be.
I've been paying attention to the people who are fed up with that line, and I can say one thing: that's just not going to work anymore. They've heard this for decades now, and nothing gets any better, because the party knows they have nowhere else to go. It's not about McCain being some champion for women's rights; they know he's not. What it *is* about is Obama, and the Democratic Party, and the fact that Obama is running to be President on the ticket of the Democratic Party, which is ostensibly supposed to champion women's rights. But this year, that was revealed to be an expedient lie. And the people who are fed up with the lies want to give the Party a wakeup call, and to let the party -- and Obama -- know that they expect action, not just promises and lies.
Roe has had only one use for the Democratic Party in the past 25 or so years -- as a club to beat women with every four years. Because they have nowhere else to go, right?
Fair pay? Health care? Domestic violence? Where has the Party been on those issues?
(Emphasis mine)
Christ on a cracker. Nothing in that screed indicates any kind of sensible rejection of a candidate or the Democratic Party.
1. There's the careful parsing of McCain not being "better" on women's issues. There's no admission that Obama is head and shoulders above McCain on women's issues. No, McCain isn't "better", which is to imply that he's not worse. McCain is also not a champion of women's issues, which is to imply that he won't do everything in his power to reverse every political, economic, and social gain that women have won in the past several decades.
2. It's fucking bullshit to say that nothing gets any better and to put the sole blame on the Democrats.
Conservatives have been fighting for decades to take over the government. They've been fighting for decades to turn the American public over to their side with great success; the majority of Americans barely support reproductive rights, and most of them are very squeamish over abortion. Any chipping away at Roe has been at the behest of the American public. Look to them for the blame.
What's amazing is how little comparative damage the Republicans have managed to wreak over the past few decades. It's a testament to our founders' foresight when they created this country, and evidence for why it's so difficult for Democrats, even when they have large majorities in Congress, to make sweeping reforms. You'd think someone with a law degree would understand that, but then you'd have to assume this is actually about the Democrats and not sour grapes over the female candidate's loss.
3. The Dems' concern for women's issues has hardly been revealed to be an "expedient lie." Having a bunch of men rush in to defend a woman's honor is a thornier issue than it first appears. What would have happened had Obama defended Hillary from sexist attacks? If anything, it would have seemed as though he were operating under the assumption that Hillary couldn't defend herself. Meanwhile, she did handle it herself, with grace and aplomb, although unfortunately only addressed it directly at the very end of her campaign.
4. I hate to break it to the tiny minority of Hillary supporters determined to sit this one out or vote McCain, but Obama is going to win in a landslide, barring something really terrible happening. If women actually do sit this one out (not that I'm saying they are, because they AREN'T), and Obama wins anyway, the ultimate message will be that the Democrats don't need women to win, and I don't really think that'll help anyone.
5. That "promises and lies" line: My impression from that is that there's nothing Obama can do at this point. This writer is determined not to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.
6. Damn straight women don't have anywhere else to go. The past eight years should have been more than enough to demonstrate the consequences of a protest vote. Perhaps this writer thinks that things can't get worse, so women have the luxury of voting against Obama. Things can get worse. Great Depression worse. Things can get worse for women, for men, for children, for people around the world. And McCain is just the pasty-faced walking corpse to make that happen.
Anyone with any sense has nowhere else to go.
7. Fair pay, health care, domestic violence, really? The party as a whole supports the fair pay act, supports some solution for our health care crisis, and has been working on DV issues for decades. For frak's sake. And while not every Democrat agrees with the party's stance on those issues, I do know where the Democratic candidate for president stands, and I'm voting for him largely because of those positions.
Lastly, why does Obama have to specifically reach out to women voters? On every issue, every issue, that is or could be important to women he's far and away better than McCain. Putting specific women's issues aside for a moment, women are affected by the economy, crappy health care, Social Security and Medicare, war, environmental destruction, and civil liberty violations just as much as men. In some cases, they're more affected by those things.
What this writer wants is not for Obama to take a specific stand on "women's" issues; he's already done that. What she wants is hand holding, for him to pay special attention to her and other disgruntled Hillary supporters and coddle them. Not surprisingly, this specific critic of Obama constantly criticizes him for being insincere and being an empty suit, and for the kind of "I feel your pain" politicking that she now wants from him! I'm not imagining a reaching out being accepted in good faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment