June 22, 2008
Too Smart To Vote For McCain
The Nation: A Feminist Would Have To Be Insane To Vote For The Presumptive GOP Nominee
-
Women voters who originally supported Clinton will not be turning to McCain, says The Nation. (AP Photo/LM Otero)
-
Play CBS Video Video Notebook: Campaign Sexism The treatment of Hillary Clinton's campaign, especially by the media, shows that sexism continues to be an accepted part of American life, opines Katie Couric.
-
Video Life after the Clinton Campaign Now that Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has ended, the press, who have been following her since the beginning, has to find a new subject. Fernando Suarez has the story.
-
Video Hillary's Run Makes History Sen. Hillary Clinton's historic bid for the White House has left an indelible mark on presidential politics and paved the way for a female commander-in-chief. Harry Smith reports.
-
Photo Essay Obama Claims Nomination Barack Obama secures the Democratic presidential nomination in historic race against Hillary Rodham Clinton.
-
Photo Essay Women Of Power They're monarchs, heads of state, business tycoons and philanthropists and they all wield extraordinary power.
Are there feminist Hillary Clinton supporters who hate Barack Obama so much they'll vote for John McCain just to show the Democratic Party how ticked off they are? Yes, and I get e-mails from all five of them. Seriously, I'm sure there are female Hillary Clinton voters who will go for John McCain in the general election, but I don't think too many of them will be feminists. Because to vote for McCain, a feminist would have to be insane. Let me rephrase that: she would have to believe that the chief — indeed the only — goal of the women's movement is to elect Clinton, not to promote women's rights. A vote for McCain would be the ultimate face-spiting nose-cutoff. Take that, women's equality!
Not that the media will help women get it. As Eric Alterman and George Zornick exhaustively document elsewhere in this issue, the mainstream press is doing its best to persuade us that McCain is a moderate -- barely distinguishable from Barack Obama — even on abortion rights, one of the brighter dividing lines between the parties. In the Providence Journal five days after Clinton suspended her campaign, columnist Froma Harrop was typical: "Would McCain stock the Supreme Court with foes of Roe v. Wade?... The answer is unclear but probably 'no.'" After all, in 1999 he told the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that he "would not support repeal" of Roe because women would seek unsafe, illegal procedures. Since the Democrats will control Congress, Harrop figures, "McCain would probably choose a cipher" rather than get bogged down in the abortion wars. This fake shrewdness, buttressed by much use of "probably," "seems," "may" and "my guess is," has as much value as a bet by a drunk in a bar. We all have our hunches — usually they magically line up with our wishes and preferences, in Harrop's case, her support for Clinton. By the end of the column she's castigating Obama for his "present" votes on abortion bills in the Illinois Assembly, and by the time she's finished, you'd never know that NARAL and Planned Parenthood give Obama 100 percent ratings and McCain a big fat zero.
How antichoice is John McCain? Let's leave the psychological tea leaves out of it and look at his record. In his four years in the House, from 1983 to 1986, he cast eleven votes on reproductive issues. Ten were antichoice. Of 119 such votes in the Senate, 115 were antichoice, including votes for the ban on so-called partial-birth abortions and for the "gag rule," which refuses funds to clinics abroad that so much as mention abortion. In 1999, the year he said he opposed repeal of Roe on health grounds, he voted against a bill that would have permitted servicewomen overseas, where safe, legal abortion is often unavailable, to pay out of their own pockets for abortions in military hospitals.
His record on contraception and sex education is just as bad. He voted against a 2005 budget amendment, sponsored by Senator Hillary Clinton, that would have allotted $100 million to reduce teen pregnancy by means of education and birth control. He voted to require parental consent for birth control for teenage girls and to abolish Title X, which funds birth control and gynecological care for the poor. He voted against requiring insurance companies to pay for prescription contraception, when they pay for other prescription drugs — like, um, Viagra. The beat goes on, and on. With a handful of minor exceptions (he voted to confirm prochoice Surgeon General Dr. David Satcher after voting against prochoice Dr. Joycelyn Elders), he has a just about perfect antichoice record, including votes to confirm the Supreme Court nominations of Thomas, Roberts and Alito.
As for his 1999 pro-Roe remark, he has retracted it many, many times. Here he is on Meet the Press, May 13, 2007:
Q: Back in 1999...you said this: "Certainly, in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."
A: Well, it was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision....
Q: But if Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?
A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into birth and into life in this world.
If that's not clear enough for you, how about this: "I do not support Roe v. Wade, period. It should be overturned" (Associated Press, February 18, 2007). Or this, from his campaign website: "Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned."
As the Bush years have shown, the President has a tremendous amount of power; Supreme Court nominations don't begin to describe it. He nominates all the federal judges (302 since Bush took office). He appoints the heads of dozens of regulatory agencies, many of which (HHS, FDA, National Institutes of Health) directly affect women's lives. He submits legislation and the budget to Congress. He has a veto. Bush, we all know, has filled the government with right-wing Christian hacks and family-values fanatics, with room left over for incompetent cronies. He has done just about nothing good for women. McCain's record suggests he would not be any different. His opposition to the Ledbetter Act, which would have overturned the Supreme Court's restrictions on women's right to sue for paycheck discrimination, tells you everything you need to know about where he stands on economic justice for women.
The media can call John McCain a moderate all they want. No matter how aggrieved women are by Clinton's loss, I'm betting that the ones who care about women's rights are too smart to fall for it.
By Katha Pollitt
Reprinted with permission from The Nation.
 | If you like this article, check out www.thenation.com for more investigative reports, timely editorials and incisive columns |
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 12
- next
See all 225 CommentsYou already know that, TruUSA. It''s been thoroughly discussed and well established in several other threads here that you''ve participated in. Links to the laws regarding that fact were provided.
Why do you keep telling people to do something that will get their ballot discarded, unless you''re a Limbaugh dittohead working his silly "Operation Chaos" game?
If everyone who voted in the Primaries for Hillary would vote for her as a write in candidate, She would be our next President.
DON''T LET THEM MAKE US CHOOSE
BETWEEN THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS!!!
Don''t forget that more people actually cast their vote for Hillary than any other candidate in history!!
Vote the people''s choice.
VOTE FOR HILLARY!!!
**WE WILL DO IT**
the only people that should vote for this traitor,
thoses getting the faith-based bribes,
the mindless christian sheep
"IT_Oldtimer, I''''ve read through the series of posts on this page with disgust.You are a condescending jerk. LindaA_1 and TruUSA attempted to carry on an interesting and informative conversation. But you - you insult and insult and then think your arrogant "good for you" gives you some kind of credibility? What a sexist bag of hot air you are. Don''''t get started with me. I don''''t use my energy duking it out with such pathetic wastes of space as you."
______________________________________________________
Don''t like it? Oh, gee. Too bad! Wahhh! You must mistakenly think that I exist solely to please you? LOL...hardly.
If you don''t like my comments, then don''t read them.
Better read all yhose posts again, carefully, from the beginning this time. You''ll see that I was not the first to resort to insults, I was just giving back as good as I was getting.
I don''t suffer fools gladly. And I really don''t give a hoot what you think about me. Have a nice day!
Isn''t that cute.
Still no answers. You must be Operation Chaos.
Now that this is no more than a pi**ing match, I''m done with you.
Mouse click for Obama on somebody else''s time and energy.
YOU SAY: "I haven''''t been trying to get on your case, I am honestly curious as to the justification for your mindset."
So Obama. Such a lie.
YOU SAY: "I know 19 people who voted for Hillary: 11 were courtesy of Operation Chaos...6 are switching their vote to Obama...2 are bona-fide man-haters..."
I tell you what, you show me a verifiable source for those ridiculous numbers and we''ll talk. BTW. Obama''s Street Cred Playbook is not a credible source.
YOU SAY: "I don''''t believe you fall into categories one or three, so I''''m just curious as to why you are not category two, where your candidate has asked you to be to support her issues?
Because unlike you, I can think for myself, and never liked Kool Aid in the first place. I''m old enough to remember the late Jim Jones and his (late) followers.
YOU SAY: "I''''m so glad that you know so much more than your candidate..."
You asked me a question. I gave you an honest answer. What I am supposed to do, dumb myself down to make you Obamacrats happy? Wouldn''t you know.
YOU SAY: "If you want to impress others with all of your extensive political knowledge try answering questions when people ask, rather than trying to beat them about the head and shoulders with your self-righteous political savvy."
I''m sorry that you find expertise and experience threatening. (Oh. I forgot, that''s Obama''s strong suit - no experience, no expertise other than what he learned from Chicago thugs and radical liberationist theologists - racists in reverse.)
I''m also sorry that you only consider yourself properly answered when you get the "I love Obama" answer you want.
I''m beginning to think you''re one of the 400 bloggers rumored to be on the payroll of "I''m going to be an honest broker" Obama - bloggers whose job it is to twist the tails of Hillary supporters until we give up out of exhaustion.
Do you really think you''ll get the best of me or other Hillary supporters? Not a chance!!!
I haven''t been trying to get on your case, I am honestly curious as to the justification for your mindset.
I know 19 people who voted for Hillary: 11 were courtesy of Operation Chaos and therefore don''t count; 6 are switching their vote to Obama because of the need to get the republicans out of the White House; 2 are bona-fide man-haters who would never vote for any man for any office--they regularly write in Minnie Mouse.
I don''t believe you fall into categories one or three, so I''m just curious as to why you are not category two, where your candidate has asked you to be to support her issues?
I''m so glad that you know so much more than your candidate and are so privy to her thoughts, which according to you are in direct opposition to the statements she makes in public. However, I believe you are wrong.
P.S. If you want to impress others with all of your extensive political knowledge try answering questions when people ask, rather than trying to beat them about the head and shoulders with your self-righteous political savvy.
YOU SAY: But what if she really means it? What if a democratic White House is more important to her than continuing a hissy fit?"
If you want to have a reasonable dialogue with people, you might drop the incendiary rhetoric. What good reason is there for using the term "hissy fit" other than to continue the Obama/Obama supporter disrespect for women.
A hissy fit is by definition "a temper tantrum" associated with childish behavior.
It''s Obama speak. If you truly have any respect for Hillary Clinton, you''d stop insulting those of us who have given long thought to our electoral choices and made some really hard decisions - even if they are not like yours.
YOU SAY: "I am willing to grant her the courtesy and respect of believing she means what she says. This is what she has asked of her supporters. How can you disrespect her wishes in this matter?"
Because I''ve been in politics for over forty years, because I''ve worked inside campaigns, because I know political strategy, because I know what I''m doing.
Because I have no dreamy illusions about Barack Obama, because I was a radical uber-liberal like him in my misguided youth and I know his terrain well, because I where he''s coming from with this empty "hope" rhetoric - and he''s already showing his disingenuous agenda all over the place - if any of his supporters are willing to open their eyes and see it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by TruUSA at 12:56 PM : Jun 23, 2008
I began the campaign as an Edwards supporter and I still regret his withdrawal from the race. But I have always, from day one, wanted to get the republicans out of the White House. (Sorry, republicans, but that is how I feel--I''m an independent.) I would have cheerfully voted for Hillary if she had been the nominee, and still will if it is her name on the ballot in November.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by LindaA_1 at 12:41 PM : Jun 23, 2008
But what if she really means it? What if a democratic White House is more important to her than continuing a hissy fit? What if she feels her political future is intrinsically tied to a democratic presidency in 2008? Are you doing her any favors by voting or promoting McCain?
Myself, I am willing to grant her the courtesy and respect of believing she means what she says. This is what she has asked of her supporters. How can you disrespect her wishes in this matter?
texanforlogi,
YOU SAY: "It''''s been all over the news, she''''s been quoted many times since she suspended her campaign. How in the world did you miss this?"
Do I sound like somebody who misses that kind of thing? Have you ever been through a campaign before?
She''s doing what she has to. Ever heard of strategy?
If you were directing your remark to the author, sorry for the knee jerk reaction on my part. Too many Obama fire fights lately...
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 12
- next
See all 225 Comments