Reading Christopher Hayes' aunt's take on Hillary gives me the heebie jeebies. I don't want to vote for someone because it would be a historic blow for women; I want to vote for someone with a good policy agenda. Barring that, I want to vote for someone whose policy approach doesn't actually make me physically queasy. The exit poll split makes it pretty clear that large numbers of Democratic women voted for her because she has ovaries.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
But the female Clinton voters in NH are not like Megan. I doubt that they voted for Clinton even though they thought she had a bad policy agenda and she makes them queasy.
Unlike Megan, they are Democrats. They probably felt that all the top three candidates were about equally acceptable. Given that, they decided to pick the woman. I'm an Obama supporter, but I would have been tempted to vote for Clinton just because of the double standard the media is applying to her: she's too mannish, she's showing cleavage, she's "sobbing," she's only a presidential candidate because her husband cheated, and on and on. It's BS. And I agree with Christopher Hayes' aunt: Obama's comment that Hillary was "likable enough" sounded condescending.
Hillary appeals especially to the uneducated and unintelligent.
Her message is essentially:
Those who understand little about economics find that message appealing. Single women, in particular, tend to be poor and ill-educated, and that fact has at least as much to do with their votes as gender.
"The exit poll split makes it pretty clear that large numbers of Democratic women voted for her because she has ovaries."
Wait . . . no possibility that the exit split reveals large numbers of men voted against her because she has ovaries? Why is it that the women are the ones assumed to be irrational?
Good post rwe! As a NH native I remember her Christmas ads where she sent the "voters" health care. That's her big appeal. Voters (especially Democratic voters who focus on policy over style) hear Hillary talk about health care, hear the attacks on Obama for not supporting "universal" health care and think that electing Hillary president will end their health care costs and that there won't be a fight over the issue. It's the Democratic equivalent of Republicans objecting to McCain because he supported a compromise on immigration.
I don't want to vote for someone because it would be a historic blow for women; I want to vote for someone with a good policy agenda.
Assume you believe all three have good policy agendas. Then what do you do? There are no circumstances in which you would use affirmative action to help break the glass ceiling? I find it perfectly reasonable to believe that Democrats would believe affirmative action to be an acceptable reason to vote for one candidate over another.
If we assume that Democrats would support using affirmative action to help a woman get a top job or a place in a top college, why not a vote?
Al,
Of course, if you argue that one should vote for Clinton to "break the glass ceiling" you could make an equally valid argument for voting for Obama on the same grounds.
Wait . . . no possibility that the exit split reveals large numbers of men voted against her because she has ovaries? Why is it that the women are the ones assumed to be irrational?
Given the gender spread and positions represented by the candidates, wouldn't a strong tendency of female voters to vote for the female candidate at least suggest that gender identity was a strong factor driving those results?
Although I do question MM's assertion about the ovaries. I mean, has she seen them? Have the voters?
"Good post rwe!"-Robert
Thanks Robert. Here is one example of what I was saying:
She later dropped that proposal when it came under heavy criticism. But it reveals a great deal about her mindset. She is looking forward to getting into the White House, jacking up tax rates on the most productive Americans and using their funds to buy the support of the least productive--many of whom are layabouts who want the government to take care of them rather than having to provide for themselves.
But Hillary's message would not have come as a surprise to one keen obeserver of american politics:
This tendancy to slouch toward socialism has gotten so bad that even self-styled "libertarians" like Megan McArdle have acceded to it. Hence her support for Obama (who, while a better person than Mrs. Clinton, is not much friendlier to economic liberty).
Of course, if you argue that one should vote for Clinton to "break the glass ceiling" you could make an equally valid argument for voting for Obama on the same grounds.
Yes, one could. But ultimately, one has to choose one of them, and either/both Clinton and the media can get credit for making gender appear more salient to many voters this weekend in New Hampshire.
I can understand that Democrats think they are advancing the cause of equality when they vote for Hillary. What I don't get is why they think having a woman President will make any kind of substantive difference in the country's attitudes about women in general. After all, Pakistan had Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister 20 years ago, and no one would call that country a bastion of gender equality. History is chock full of powerful female political figures that had no effect on the liberalization of attitudes on gender.
I think it would be much more important symbolically to vote for Barack Obama.
Not sure I like the stereotyping of single women as poorer and less educated. Single mothers perhaps, at least compared to mothers in stable marital situations, but most single women I know have degrees and good jobs. They have no need to get married just to survive, so they are less likely to put up with unsatisfactory relationships.
Shhh, don't harsh rwe's buzz, M.C...
God, not this again. Welfare queens!
God, not this again. Welfare queens!
It'll go away when the welfare queens do.
There's also the possibility that some women voted for Hillary to show support after the savaging she was getting in the media.
Look, guys--everytime you sneer at Hillary as being "too-ballbusting", "a bitch", "why doesn't she know her place?" "without experience"--you are bringing up memories for a LOT of older women who had the exact same shit thrown at them during their working lives. No wonder they feel empathy for Hillary and are liable to vote for her over other Democratic candidates.
Oh, and rwe? Go ahead and say that Hillary "appeals to the uneducated and unintelligent." You've just managed to diss quite a lot of people out there, y'know.
I don't think the exit polls indicate any such thing. The only thing they indicate is that gender may have been one factor among many that Democratic voters considered in selecting their preferred candidate. That's not troubling in the least.
Thispid wrote:
Hillary appeals especially to the uneducated and unintelligent... Single women, in particular, tend to be poor and ill-educated, and that fact has at least as much to do with their votes as gender.
What a fantastic pair of assertions. Got anything to back them up? No? Oh. Can I hurt you now?
I tried to post a couple of links that I believe substantiate my claim that single women tend to be poorer and less educated, but the post got caught up in MM's annoying spam filters. She can release it if she wants to.
There does appear to be strong evidence that older, poor, and uneducated women are Hilary's strongest supporters. Obama's supporters tend to be younger, wealthier, and more educated.
Do I really have to feel guilty about drawing conclusions from this? I kind of do. But I can't help but to think that this a troubling on some level. maybe I'm just a snob.
Anony-mouse,
I don't know about ovaries, but she has had a pair of testicles in her purse since about January 1998.
"It'll go away when the welfare queens do."-Posted by Rob Lyman
Do you mean real welfare queeens like ADM, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and Boeing, or the fictional ones that Ronald Reagan lied about?
I mean the real, actual people who really, truly do take money from the government in exchange for not doing any work. The do exist, you know.
Oddly, the companies you list provide valuable services in exchange for (possibly bloated) payment. In that sense, they are certainly different from people getting TANF checks. Better examples of corporate welfare might be, say, the domestic sugar industry.
Well, maybe not ADM.
Hillary may have had ovaries and a uterus at some point in time, but none of us knows the current status of those organs. Although I agree, she at least has testicles. Point being, the candidates trade shots and rhetoric - decry each others voting record - while we try to divine the deeper psychological meanings of our democracy. So, rather than glean psychic wisdon or ponder the imponderables, there's concrete evidence of what one presidential hopeful has achieved. Submitted for your approval: http://theseedsof9-11.com
"I mean the real, actual people who really, truly do take money from the government in exchange for not doing any work. The do exist, you know"
You can do that for a two year stretch, with a total of five years in your life. That isn't a lifestyle unless your life is very short.
You can do that for a two year stretch, with a total of five years in your life. That isn't a lifestyle unless your life is very short.
1) That wasn't true when Reagan complained, although he may have "lied" about other things. 2) It became true thanks to conservatives, and over the screamingly hysterical objections of liberals. 3) And it still is only true for TANF, not other forms of handout like subsidized housing or food stamps.
Those who doubt that Hillary uses cheap demagoguery to play on the ignorance of the economically illiterate should look at this: Hillary Clinton Declares Chinese Candles a Threat to Our Prosperity.
I suspect MEH will particularly enjoy it, if he hasn't seen it already.
I mean the real, actual people who really, truly do take money from the government in exchange for not doing any work.
Your sentence should continue: "...and who cruise the ghettos in their new Cadillacs jacked up on gold-rimmed tires listening to the hippity-hop music while smoking crack from their diamond pipes. Also, who are loud and black."
That is basically what Reagan meant when he used the perjorative term "welfare queen." Note that he didn't say "welfare recipient," which is what you just described. He said welfare queen, and he was talking about black women who were supposedly cashing their checks on absurdly luxurious goods that they couldn't possibly have afforded despite the fact that they were getting welfare.
(An aside, not directed at anyone in particular: Nothing is so amusing as to listen to the lurid imagery conservatives and libertarians employ when railing against welfare programs. It's like they think everyone who gets public assistance is a Queen Latifah-sized single black woman chugging 40s with one hand and balancing the crack pipe in the other hand with five kids clinging to her rolls of fat.)
Fist off, everyone knows the Cadillacs would be lowered. Jacking up is something rednecks do, not hip-hoppers.
Second, whatever Reagan did or didn’t say, rwe described “layabouts” who wanted government to take care of them, with no mention of any General Motors product whatsoever. Liberalrob brought up the word “welfare queens.” All I’m adding to the discussion is that you can expect criticism of welfare “queens,” or “recipients,” or “clients,” or whatever the hell to continue as long as such people exist, because anytime somebody gets something for nothing, it rankles on the people who have to pay for it.
Rob, note how quick these guys are to bring race into this. I didn't. I don't think you did either.
I was talking about the Democrat women of New Hampshire who voted for Hillary. It might come as a shock to "Immoralist" that they are alomst entirely white--because there just aren't many black people in that state.
This is the cheap tactic of what Tom Sowell calls "race hustlers." When you're losing the argument call your opponents racists. That's a lot easier than defending Hillary's baby bonds or tariffs on imported candles.
New logic: Vote for the candidate with ovaries.
Old logic: Vote for the candidate with a wiener.
I don't deny that gender and race play a big role in decisions that SHOULD be made on merit.
However, these days, the perception of bias often skews decisions IN FAVOR of the female or minority.
The glass ceiling was never really "glass". It was just a bunch of banana peels on the rungs of the ladder to keep women from climbing too high. We'ev been picking up the peels for 20+ years. Now Hilary is getting the benefit of being pushed "through" an obstacle that is no longer there.
Ditto for Obama.
Wait . . . no possibility that the exit split reveals large numbers of men voted against her because she has ovaries? Why is it that the women are the ones assumed to be irrational?
Precisely. It seems most likely that both men and women were influenced by the candidates' sexes. What evidence do we have that men wouldn't have changed their votes at all if Clinton were male or Obama were female?
By the way, if we really need to "break the glass ceiling", I'm perfectly willing to support an amendment to the Constitution to allow Margaret Thatcher to become President.
rwe:
Just as Reagan's "welfare queens" were largely a figment of his pre-Alzheimer's addled imagination, so your "layabouts who want the government to take care of them rather than having to provide for themselves" are generally non-existent. We had this whole argument a couple of months ago, and here it comes around again. Thus my "welfare queens!" comment. Once more you're making a mountain out of a molehill, trumping up a small and easily affordable free-rider/moral hazard issue into an argument for terminating the entire social safety net.
As far as bringing race into the discussion, it's true you didn't explicitly state the race of your putative "layabouts" but there is a long and sordid history of that very characterization being applied to African-Americans, of which I'm sure you're aware. So don't give me that shocked tone.