Wow. This post really made me feel "othered". Cool beans. Thanks.

Amber, why do you feel that way? After the criticism this list took through the primaries for being tilted Pro-Obama (or PrObama), why would a link talking about all the different ways people are legitimately ticked off make you feel "othered"?

Honestly,this only seems like more evidence of a blind spite vote to me. And this whole thing is starting to get to me.

I realize that there are people who feel that Hillary should be chosen as a running mate, but she's not the best choice and her family's finances are too shady to survive the vetting.

Please, people, vote based on the issues, not on space.

I promise that even if you don't like Obama, McCain is much, much worse.

jstein, the article you linked ignores the bit at the end of the Salon piece which says most Hillary supporters will, in fact, vote for Obama in the end.

Maybe not PUMA, but still most of them.

Traister's commentary has a lot to do with women's indignance at being dismissed and underserved on the cusp of the historic moment when they thought America might begin to take them seriously.

The response jstein linked to responds with rebuttals like, "Stop kvetching," That's just complete and utter bullshit," "There are still no issues here, there is still no logical argument and there is still, most importantly, no point," and "So what?"

Not. Helpful.

Wow, jstein, way to totally miss the point of the article. Utterly, and disgustingly. You took an article about legitimate frustrations of women and, point by point, said "shut up you whiney little girls". Oh, sorry, you said "stop kvetching". Charming! Both sexist AND racist.

(In case you missed the memo, this is a feminist site. And last time I checked, most feminists don't think that "shut up, you stupid women" is a good argument.)

I like this piece, but my one complaint is that it, like many others of this genre, seems to equate listening to women with selecting Hillary as the nominee. Reading articles like this absent any other information, one would assume that Hillary had won women's votes in some sort of landslide. Realistically, she won big in some demographics of women, he won big in others, and others were split down the middle.

I do think it is othering to assume that Hillary supporters are the spokeswomen for women's interests. I know many Obama supporters who voted for him for feminist reasons. And it is condescnding to the young women, who he won in a landslide, the women of color, who he also won in a landside, and the half of women ages 30-60 who voted for him, to assume that they weren't thinking about what is good for women when they cast their ballots.

That being said, I do agree that all women were belittled and ignored by the media's treatment of Hillary Clinton.

I think that it is really important to address the reasons that Clinton supporters are upset, and also to be able to express ourselves, including in symbolic ways. However, everyone should remember that there is an election coming up. When we think about what our goal is, what our plans are, what we plan to do to express ourselves, I think that we should keep a scenario in mind.
On election night, John McCain wins.

If that happens, can you look back, without regret, on what you did between now and then? Will you still be proud of how you expressed yourself?

I don't mean to be preachy, that is just what came to mind when I was considering the PUMAs and what effect they could have on the election.

For those who think I'm being sexist (and anti-semitic by use of the term kvetch), it wasn't intended that way.

People are entitled to be upset with the result of the election, but to say that you are going to leave the party and vote for someone else has no basis in reality, and the article only established that.

My problem is that you are going to throw an election to a guy who would take away women's rights (not just the right to choose, but many others) and believe that homosexuality is a disease out of spite.

You should have a better reason than that, in my opinion.

As for Robots A Go Go, the only person who made an actual point about my comment, I agree that most voters will eventually turn to Obama, but we both have to acknowledge (and you did in your comment) groups like PUMA which aren't, purely out of spite.

I hate to believe that people vote based on spite. I was raised in an idealistic household where thought that people voted based on where they stood on issues.

Clearly, that was my delusion.

...her family's finances are too shady to survive the vetting

Will the vetting be more thorough than the year-long investigation conducted while she was First Lady, and managed to find absolutely nothing, but still started the "no smoke without fire" whisper campaign that you're perpetuating?

Seriously. The Clintons are clean. People have tried very, very hard to prove otherwise, and failed. It's time to accept that now, no matter how hard it is for some people to swallow.

Whatever one may think about the primaries, from a female standpoint, there is more to lose by a McCain victory than there ever was to Clinton losing to Obama. Be upset with the Democratic Party. Be livid, and demand fairer treatment. But don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

And as for it being a historic moment, it's still a historic moment if Obama wins, if only from a slightly different view on what makes it historic. This was not the only time we'll see a female candidate for high office. I suspect women will run in the primaries from now on, be taken seriously, and in four or eight or twelve or however many years, we'll see a female president. But for this election, preventing more Republican dominance of the executive branch is paramount to anything.

AP: I think the article makes the things you mention fairly clear. Traister is good a pointing out that she's NOT trying to pigeonhole women, or white women, into any sort of role, that the points she covers don't speak to all women (whether they voted for Obama or Clinton), and that they won't even speak to all Clinton supporters. They're based on her observations and interviews with particular people. She has a specific topic: There are some female Clinton supporters who are upset about the outcome of the primaries. What are some of the reasons they are upset? I don't see that as "othering" either Clinton supporters or any other groups any more than an article specifically examining why Obama supporters support him would by itself be othering.

jstein- That blog was pretty crappy. I hardly see how responding "so what" to every point of the Salon article as an actual argument. The part I especially hated was when the author said that Hillary wouldn't make a good running mate because she wouldn't help get additional states.
Um, what? I thought you had to actually care how a candidate performs *after* being elected...Also s/he didn't seem to read the end of the Salon article (which said, no they probably won' actually vote for McCain, that would be stupid).

Any-ho. I'm not a very angry Clinton supporter. Only because I do find her and Obama to be equal candidates and I would be pleased as punch to see either one elected. However, I did get angry during the process at everyone telling me how wrong I was for not supporting Obama *more*. So I can sympathize with a lot of women feeling slightly and like their opinion didn't count. But I think it would be very silly not to pick Clinton as his running mate. I think the two would balance each other out and actually give Dem. voters what they want for once!

Honestly, of those dozen reasons to be angry in general, I can only see four of them as being legitimate reasons to actually direct anger towards Obama's campaign or presidential prospects.

Reasons 4, 6, 7, and 12 seem like they were both true, and possible reasons to hold a grudge against Obama's campaign.

4. ...we started to talk about sexism only once Clinton stopped being a threat. [that was crappy not just of the media, but of Obama's campaign and his supporters.]

6. ... mad at Howard Dean.
7. They are mad at Barack Obama. [You bet. They lowered themselves to the level of smear politics that has spread from the Republicans through the Dem party.]

12. And finally, they are angry because they feel they are held hostage by the party by their reproductive organs. [Absolutely. It's infuriating. When in history has a party moved because of the grumbling of an un-losable voting bloc?]

That said, much of the crappy behavior that ticked me off about the Obama campaign also ticked me off about the Clinton campaign.

I admit that I am still hyper sensitive about the nomination. I am planning on voting for Obama in November because I do not want McCain to win.

This is how the article reads to me:

The article starts off by talking about how if you are a Democrat you are probably really excited for this election! Too bad those darn Clinton supporters aren’t as exuberant as we are! Those downers! How can we understand them? The article goes on to say that “women over 30 are the most vocal malcontents” (I’m a 23 year old Clinton supporter. We do exist).

The article then goes into the “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” dichotomy. The author addresses that this may be offensive, but it still doesn’t make it sit right with me. Am I from Venus or Mars?

When an article starts off offending me in the first paragraph, it can’t do much to redeem itself. Again, I admit it could just be that I am still super pissed off at how this primary season went, but I’m not going to apologize for feeling offended.

While I agree with the list, the article started off on a sour note for me with the sub-headline "The attack of the PUMAs, or a dozen reasons why Clinton voters are still too angry to come home" (emphasis mine)

I'm so sick that some people expect Clinton supporters to put away our feelings for the "good of the party" and "come home" to vote for Obama. Obama has done absolutely nothing to earn my vote at this point. I don't plan on voting for McCain in November, but right now I don't feel like voting at all because Obama has yet to make an active effort to persuade me that he's worthy of my vote (just being a democratic candidate at this point isn't enough).

I must say, reading that article made me, if anything, less sympathetic toward angry HRC supporters. I agree that the media sexism was deplorable, but Traister really misses some essential points. She emphasizes that older white women/feminists who are threatening to vote for McCain are tired of being called racists - but nowhere does she acknowledge the implicitly or overtly racist statements of supporters including Geraldine Ferraro, Gloria Steinem, Robin Morgan, Erica Jong, or the Clintons themselves. (Statements, incidentally, for which very few of them apologized.) And wanting to vote for McCain out of anger at Keith Olbermann? That just... well, if that's what someone's planning to do, I don't think s/he deserves an apology for being treated as spiteful, irrational, and ridiculous.

A thoughtful and intelligent piece.

Obama failed to denounce the sexist attacks on Clinton with any enthusiasm and Clinton failed to denounce the racist attacks on Obama with any enthusiasm.

Basically they both acted like your typical street-fighting politicians who don't mind getting dirty in order to win. Given their backgrounds, that should surprise no one.

To expect statesperson-like conduct in a close race between today's Democratic pols determined to be #1 is unrealistic. You might as well blame a shark for having teeth.

Maybe in a few elections from now we'll get past these ugly racial and gender based donnybrooks. That's up to the political activists who put pressure on the process to make that unacceptable behavior.

At this point our voices are too weak and disorganized to have much impact. It's up to us to change that.

Tim Wise adds another dimension to this discussion.
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/WhitenessShowing.html

12. And finally, they are angry because they feel they are held hostage by the party by their reproductive organs. [Absolutely. It's infuriating. When in history has a party moved because of the grumbling of an un-losable voting bloc?]

This sentiment is mystifying to me. You're really infuriated with the Democratic party b/c they're so much better than the Republicans on reproductive rights that they can take your votes for granted? What is the alternative here? They're not very good on reproductive rights, so they have to listen to you more? I can see being angry with the country for allowing a party (the Republicans) to exist that is so opposed to women's rights, but I don't see the justification for being angry with the Democrats here.

I agree with the the above posters that this article was "othering" in it's treatment of Women as a Homogeneous group who are upset about Clinton.

The point of my "so what?" statements was to point out that not winning is no reason to jump ship from the party.

I do understand those women who feel that they have been left out by the Democratic party. That's a valid feeling and not entirely untrue. Boycotting the party to vote for McCain, though, is going an irrational step further for the sake of spite.

Still, the point stands:

Those who refuse to support the party out of spite and not based on actual issues (which is, as far as I've seen, absolutely no one) are going to hand an election to a monstrous asshat.

I don't want that, and I'm fair sure that if the PUMA faction looked at this situation objectively, they would find that they don't want it either.

My point is that I am a registered independent who openly supported Biden.

Am I bitter about it?

Not at all.

I didn't think Obama was the best candidate, but he's a helluva lot better than the old crone the GOP nominated.

jstein - using a term for a woman to describe a man isn't going to win you or your argument any points.

mpowell - you're damn right I don't want my vote taken for granted. Besides, I haven't seen a lot of action recently that backs up the democratic party's stance on reproductive rights. As the right has continually tried (and sometimes succeeded) to erode our right to have access to birth control and abortion, the democrats have sat back and let it happen. I would really appreciate it if the democrats would actively defend my rights, rather than wait for the republicans to attack them.

I thought this was a great article. I voted for Obama in my primary but always felt he was only slightly better than Clinton, so I can understand where a lot of these women are coming from.

I'm amazed that so many people seem to be taking this crap seriously. Do you all really think that there are enough disgruntled Clinton supporters who will actually vote for McCain that it matters? Am I the only one who views this cynically, as just another media-exaggeration to increase the divisions between people who actually have a lot in common? Buying into this bull is just making it worse, since we then get threads like this filled with people who see fit to tell Clinton supporters how they should feel, which in turn makes them feel even more dismissed.

And even if you do believe this crap, is it really that hard to stop and think that yet another dismissive comment will probably not help? That rather than perpetuating some of the very problems that lead us to this point in the first place, you should try to change the pattern and hopefully get a better outcome? It is seriously mind-boggling to me that people can be so thoughtless even with something they consider to be of utmost importance.

moriath: what would Obama have to say or do to earn your vote?

It'd be nice if they covered the amount of Republicans who don't like John McCain, for once.

I was not a Hillary supporter and I am also not a McCain or Obama supporter. McCain for obvious reasons and Obama because he has done absolutely nothing to convince me to vote for him other than showing up for TV events looking well groomed. I honestly feel very "othered" by just about every discussion about these three I've seen since the primaries began. It literally baffles me that anyone could support any of them even one little bit.

This is where we end up in a two party binary system. What is the alternative? Hell there are dozens of alternatives. Green. Liberterian. Socialist. The list goes on. But people are too afraid to vote with their conscience; to vote for a third party that matches their politics way better than the Democrats can. It's a matter of short term v. long term. If we keep being afraid of the short term consequences of voting third party; out of fear that the democrats will lose and the republicans win; we never give a more radical approach the chance. In the long run, less changes because the Democrats have no reason to change; their constituents who are more left-leaning than the party will always come back to them out of fear.

I support Cynthia McKinney because I believe, if the Democrats lose enough votes to parties that are further to the left of them, that might induce them to change. Or perhaps voting third party will cause the whole paradigm to shift to the left, in the long run. If everyone whose politics matched the Green platform, for example, voted Green, Democrats would be a dying breed indeed. Plus, in her list of "10 key values"(granted I got this from her facebook page; I didn't have time to check on her campaign page), feminism makes the cut. How many mainstream politicians can you say that about? That's awesome.

We need to radicalize voting, step out of the binary paradigm, to really change things. We need to not be afraid.

jstein, please stop it with the 1) "spite" and with the 2) "bitterness" and with the 3) pleas for rationality. With 1 and 2, you're a hair's breadth from "catty" and with the 3rd you're flirting with "hysteria." You are Still Not Helping.

I understand why some people would draw the line in the sand. Nobody owes a vote to a party that they do not believe is representing them. For the party to behave as if they were owed that vote is hubristic.

Is it likely that folks will jump ship for McCain? I doubt it. Much more troubling to me is the possibility that the Dems who felt ignored and what have you just won't vote now. That's what people seem to do when they feel disenfranchised — they don't vote. Inertia, in my opinion, is the larger threat.

"I'm amazed that so many people seem to be taking this crap seriously. Do you all really think that there are enough disgruntled Clinton supporters who will actually vote for McCain that it matters?"

All it will take is single digit percentage points of people voting independent, switching sides, or staying home on election day to blow it. It is scary.

Ayla, I totally agree. What this article didn't seem to acknowledge is that this isn't really about Hillary, per se. It's about a corrupt and limiting two-party system that takes huge blocs of voters for granted. Some of the "pissed-off Hillary supporters" people keep talking about are actually most angry about the fact that we are now "supposed" to support a candidate without experience, and someone who seems pretty uncomfortable and reactive when faced with any kind of adversity. I'm voting for Cynthia McKinney because I believe she's actually committed to the issues I feel strongly about, not just committed to becoming president for its own sake.

First of all mea maxima culpa, I know there's a lot more I could learn though it's a little late now. I did however follow the campaign to the best of my ability and it's strange to me to see Clinton supporters fleeing the party. We've had Green/3rd party candidates for ages, but the thing I don't understand is why were those people for Clinton? She was a mainstream candidate. Certainly she was somewhat more left on health care but is that difference it?

It is very strange to see in the PUMA (ugh for the name at least) rhetoric the idea that Obama is both too conservative and too liberal.

FWIW I have some strong feelings about what's really going on here but it's also very confusing. It's an ugly situation. In campaigns we see things get a bit of hand sometimes, for both candidates we saw this. Now in many blogs talking about Obama and sexism you still see the campaign-style stories that are basically rumors (e.g. that they played "99 problems" before a rally.) It's disturbing to see this stuff drag on.

And finally I saw the whole "likeable enough" thing and really when I hear people point to that I simply don't trust their judgment. It wasn't sexist, it wasn't anything. Clearly I could have some tone-deafness on sexism. (That's one reason I read this blog.) But the campaign process has contributed to a lot of intense & questionable judgment of the opponent (c.f. Clinton's RFK comments.)

Ayla- so participating in all the debates, campaigning amazingly well in as many states as possible, giving a landmark speech on race and rallying voters isn't enough, that's simply 'looking pretty".
I guess his senate record too, which includes some 570 sponsored or co-sponsored laws, (25 on the environment, over 40 on health and health care) and the host of other things he's done as my senator, well, he did that in between his hair and manscaping appointments, right?

"All it will take is single digit percentage points of people voting independent, switching sides, or staying home on election day to blow it. It is scary."

Hmm. Then maybe, just maybe, using the language of an abuser ("get over it" and "where else are you gonna go!") isn't the best way to convince those of us who've left the dem party to vote your way. (not yours personally, yours collectively).

I'm also voting for McKinney. It's got less to do with the media's treatment of Clinton and more to do with an increasing mistrust of both Obama and those who use "Rove v. wade!" as a scare tactic. As has been stated, the dems do pretty much nothing to protect repro rights when women do support them. There's little hope they suddenly will now. (and now, NARAL doesn't change anything).

I think it is worth pointing out that in a first-past-the-post primary system, most politcal scientists agree that having two parties that cater to the middle and take people's votes on either side for granted in inevitable. I know that that is a downer, but I think it's important to not blame the democrats for a system that is very limiting. On the same note, while people should absolutely vote green if that is the candidate they support, they should do so knowing what insitutional barriers there are preventing a third party from developing. I have people tell me all the time that once the green party gets enough votes for federal election funding we will have tons of liberal parties like Europe, not recognizing at all that their elections are completely different. I don't know what the answer is, I am just saying that a big part of the problem lies with the system, not the democrats themselves.

I did a 180 turn. Many months ago, even before the primaries' posts got heated with supporters vested on one candidate, I was adamant about voting Democrat. I insisted that everyone needed to vote Democrat regardless of who became the nominee.

Now I am being told to get over her loss by both him and his supporters, do my job in supporting the party, it's my responsi-no! my duty to vote for him, to suck it up, blah blah blah and I say fuck it. No. EVERY SINGLE instance when something like this article pops up, you inevitable get people who patronize you.

He absolutely has to work to earn my vote, why the hell wouldn't he, lilianna28? For that matter, why wouldn't his supporters understand the situation as waxghost explained? Why is the onus on her supporters and not his who still rub salt in the wound? But to be frank, it was his "get over it" line from the other day that sealed the deal. His "If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it" is a little too dismissive of people he really needs on his side, but is taking for granted. This man-turned-demi-god is just another politician who sounds more and more religious as times passes.

I don't think I am voting.

"... so participating in all the debates, campaigning amazingly well in as many states as possible, giving a landmark speech on race and rallying voters isn't enough?"

1) You seriously give him kudos for participating in debates? You're joking right? Those "debates" are all about looking pretty.

2) He campaigned well in a lot of states by reading corny, vapid speeches and hiring people who were skilled at organizing people online. I'll give you this one. He gambled on the stupidity of democrats, and he won.

3) That "landmark speech" was a timid attempt to save his political butt from the fire that blamed Americans for his own poor judgement.

4) The voters he rallied were mostly young, naive, and/or wealthy - full of hope, but completely lacking in any real world experience.

So, no Obama has not given me much of a reason yet. McCain has a record of reaching across the aisle and he has a set of core values that he stands by, sometimes even standing against members of his own party (albeit rarely).

I can't stand McCain's policies when it comes to issues that are important to women, his economic policies are lousy, and he has a terrible temper with a long record of hurling sexist insults.

And yet, I (and many other Hillary supporters) still hesitate to vote for Obama. Not just because his campaign is built on a foundation of trite platitudes, but because he is politically spineless (something that McCain is definitely not), a polished politician, never taking the slightest risk, always qualifying every remark, and yet he hypocrtiically claims to be a new kind of politician. This from the man who filed a lawsuit to get his opponent thrown off of the ballot in his first state senate primary (Ted Kennedy must be so proud).

It's the same product they've been selling us for years, they just prettied up the packaging (bold new colors!) and improved their marketing pitch (new improved flavor!).

I keep waiting for some substance from Obama, something that tells me there's a person who's ready to tackle one of the most difficult, complicated jobs in the world at this crucial moment in history. I don't see it yet. I see a spoiled, naive (admittedly hardworking) person who's doing his best to convince the world that Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is something more than an oversimplified, sentimental, patronizing fairy-tale. My entire family has worked for the federal government for decades. Obama's big plans are going to hit that ancient brick wall of bureaucracy; he'll waste a lot of our money spinning his wheels doing donuts around the status quo, blame the lack of progress on congress, and call it a term.

But I truly hope I'm wrong.

A two-party system is about building strong coalitions. Going for the middle and neglecting your flanks will only work in the short term, at the very most. In the long run, this behavior will come around to bite you in the ass.

The democratic party learned this the hard way when they blew off their liberal flank for a decade, and then couldn't muster up enough enthusiasm to elect Al Gore over George fucking Bush.

PUMA's are not going to cost Obama the election in November, but they could cost the democratics a mid-term election or two down the road. There are only so many times you can tell loyal democrats that you don't give a fuck about them before they stop giving a fuck about you.

Also, Traister did a good job of identifying who she was talking about: democratic women who feel screwed over by the party. She is not implying that this is "all women."

The PUMAs have valid grievances. Obama could make a lot of headway--and so could America--if he held a forum on women's/gender/feminist issues, and agreed to make some concessions.

The thing is, most of the complaints, valid as they are, are about things that are the fault of Hillary's poor campaign or the chauvinist media. They are not the fault of Barack Obama, and they are certainly not worth putting an anti-choice, anti-womam Republican in office for a third straight term.

jstein commented at June 23, 2008 5:26 PM: "I didn't think Obama was the best candidate, but he's a helluva lot better than the old crone the GOP nominated."

Magenta Dynamite commented at June 24, 2008 9:23 AM: "It's about a corrupt and limiting two-party system that takes huge blocs of voters for granted."

These remind me of why I've liked instant-runoff ballots since before I was old enough to vote. There's more information at http://www.fairvote.org/irv/faq.htm It's a way to vote for your favorite candidate without increasing the odds of your least favorite candidate getting the most votes. :)

Wow, another Obama supporter, who was not a Clinton supporter, speaking for Clinton supporters....

Rebbecca Traister, thanks for the repeated use of the word "they"
cause we certainly aren't divided enough as feminists.
Can we really not find one, articulate, young, hip, latest wave feminist who supported Clinton and has an opinion to share about it from her personal experience?
How bout an older (dismissed) one?
Must we hear from yet another Obama supporter who disliked Clinton speak for the Clinton supporters (who may or may not choose to support Obama)?

The sexism that Clinton experienced was experienced by our entire culture. That includes women who supported Obama from day one.
I would rather hear Obama supporters speak to that than to attempt to represent women who voted differently - you know, the Women identified as "they" in the article.

dear SophiaPriscilla

an Obama supporter who was not originally a Clinton supporter wrote that article and made those assumptions-
you seem to be buying it.
"...well, if that's what someone's planning to do, I don't think s/he deserves an apology for being treated as spiteful, irrational, and ridiculous..."

Defining a womens voting ~choice~ as spiteful, feeds yet another sexist stereotype.

Women can't vote Green Party or anything else now without being considered spiteful? or Old? or Racist?
What about the young, female, black Clinton supporters? Isn't it also racist to assume that one's skin color and age determines Obama support?
Whatever-
regardless,
identifying women who have genuine concerns that are not being addressed well, as spiteful, is sexist crap.