« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Respecting Clinton's Voters
I must say the only thing that I felt was missing from Senator Clinton's terrific speech on Saturday was some acknowledgment that she and her supporters hadn't been cheated or disrespected somehow. I thought she covered all of the other bases of supporting Obama much stronger than I had expected and I was thankful for that; but it seems to me she didn't close out the idea that she was pushing just last Tuesday night in that her supporters were somehow being ignored.
I think that the "ignored" phrase from last Tuesday was either a VP demand or an avenue to take this fight to the convention. Obviously she did graciously endorse Obama on Saturday; but I just worry about the passionate and strong supporters of Clinton, still feeling like they have been wronged somehow and not just disappointed with the outcome.
For example; my mother's college roommate is an intelligent, successful, and passionate feminist who has alway voted Democratic and strongly supported Hillary Clinton. She is among the people who are now promising to vote for McCain in the fall out of spite for Obama and the Democratic Party because they feel that they have been wronged somehow. I personally don't see where the injustice took place but I acknowledge that many do see something.
I just think that Clinton should have addressed this particular point in her speech or in upcoming statements to try to bring some of the victimization out of the race and help these intelligent supporters to step back from the cliff's edge in voting for the unthinkable.
Comments (14)
I think if the problem persists (and I really don't know if/how long it will), then I think she will address this in the future. I think she and Obama are still working out coordinating details. Obviously, she wants to be her own person while working within the framework designed to get Obama elected, and these two desires might conflict at times, as they can for any politician.
Still, if this is perceived as a significant problem (e.g., >5% of her base), then look for it to be addressed.
June 9, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it was not the right time. Things were too raw - too many people (query: Hillary herself?) DO believe they were wronged somehow. (I'm with you and personally don't see it),
Most people understand that if she had been too fullsome in her praise, emphasized his breakthrough and minimized hers, those hardcore supporters would have turned off, figured that she was being made to follow the party line and not listened. I think the same thing would have happened if she'd said, in essence, "we lost fair and square" because to so many it's just a FACT that they were wronged somehow.
In fact, the best way may be to let them simply watch and pay attention to Obama over the next few months: because, in fact, he *doesn't* go underhanded, or bend the rules, or ignore women and women's issues. If they will give him a chance at all, they'll see that, especially if Hillary reinforces it when they are ready to listen. ---------- As to feeling they were not given enough respect or fairness by the press, by the pundits, and (who knows) by their own husbands and fathers and co-workers ... well, it may be true in some cases, unfortunately, but true or not, it wasn't Obama being unfair and is certainly no reason to vote for McCain over him.
Hillary didn't lose because she was a woman. She lost because she ran a really pretty bad campaign and because some people just don't like her - as a person, not because she's female. The strident 'feminists' who won't acknowledge those facts are doing the rest of us women a great disservice, because the REAL equality is when women (or blacks) win or lose based on *who* they are not *what* they are. But that's "win or lose" which means that sometimes they lose. It isn't true equality if they don't lose some of the time.
June 9, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope that you are right that it was just not the right time yet. I can't say enough praise for the support that Clinton stated for Obama in her speech overall so I don't believe that she was really holding back or anything sinister like that.
I just hope that this will be addressed in the coming weeks if we continue to see the "victim" type mentality persist. Someone else posted about Gloria Steinem talking about the sexism in the campaign on CNN just this morning, so I do think that we will continue to see this line being pushed by some.
Link to Gloria Steinem post: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/gloria-steinem-is-unintentiona.php
June 9, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well-taken, although -- overall -- it was a good speech that definitively endorsed Obama, at least for now.
Hillary seems to be observing correct form, while positioning herself to pick up the nomination banner if, for some unforeseen reason, Obama drops it. (That opinion is substantiated, I think, by the fact that Hillary did not release her pledged delegates to endorse Obama. As is the fact that, a day later, she allowed Diane Feinstein and Charlie Rangel to promote her as VP on the talk show circuit.)
This positioning, prior to Denver, is entirely pragmatic from a politician's perspective -- if unsettling to those of us who wish she had removed any suggestion of ambivalence or personal agenda.
But the good news is that the Obama campaign has proven itself to be a drama-free, highly-disciplined ship's crew under full sail.
As long as Axelrod and Plouffe et al are keeping a weather eye on the McCain horizon, there is no reason to think that reaching a "safe harbor" in in November -- with a brief port of call in Denver -- is not already meticulously charted. And, in a pinch, all of us are ready -- we hope with the help of Hillary's former supporters -- to lend a hand.
June 9, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely agree that her speech was far greater than I could have expected in terms of the support that she showed for Obama and for the party. She was very impressive in this speech that had to have been difficult for her to give.
I'm not saying that it is alone her responsibility to put the victim role to bed; but she did do a lot to hype the idea up in recent weeks so I do think that she will have to work on this specifically in the coming weeks if we are to close this issue out and bring this particular group of Democrats home to the party.
June 9, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This post addresses an overlooked, unresolved issue which may, as you suggest, have to be addressed by Sen Clinton, perhaps after the convention when her candicacy is officially over.
Forgive me though for digressing to talk about my sister-in-law, who is quite angry. She is a high school literature teacher and a longtime Democrat, passionate about the issues. I respect her tremendously. The last thing I would do at this stage is lecture her about her decision come November. In spite of anything she says now, I know she will vote democratic this Fall.
Perhaps if we back off a little. I am not referring to this posting, but others do seem to be lecturing these people and threatening them by bringing up the Roe v Wade card when what they need is just time to grieve the death of their dream of seeing a powerful female president.
June 9, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that many of these voters will console themselves and each other and come to the realization that they shouldn't vote for McCain on their own if we back off and give them space as you suggested; but I also think that Clinton did a lot to encourage the idea that these voters were being ignored so I think she should at some point make an effort to acknowledge that the system worked and all votes were taken into consideration somehow.
(I'm sure that your literature teacher sister-in-law would not appreciate my run on sentence there!)
June 9, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I had not read Elizabeth2's post before I hit "send."
Part of my increased optimism that we can worry a little less, and that we will eventually meld with Hillary's support base, is that there are an increasing number of articles that agree with Elizabeth2. The majority of the articles affirm that Hillary did not lose because she was a woman beaten by sexism; on the contrary, they affirm that she lost because she ran a flawed campaign. Not least of those flaws was her decision to defer, again and again, to the varying strategies of her predominantly male advisors, who couldn't agree among themselves about anything. Her changing campaign themes reflected that. Her loyalty and adherence to their opinions exemplified anything but a strong feminist sensibility. Surely her supporters will see that in time?
June 9, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was a Hillary supporter, but I'm also a loyal Democrat and I will support the nominee of my party, as I suspect most other Clintonistas will sooner or later.
I don't believe that sexism is responsible for Hillary losing, altho I do think there obviously was sexism--not so much from the Obama camp but in the media. but I don't think that was the problem.
a lot of us were turned off by the charge that anyone who didn't vote for Obama was somehow a closet racist. this was a common remark that I read and heard over and over again, even on these message boards at TPM.
and I do think there was a double standard at work: it was ok to make fun of Hillary, to treat her supporters with contempt...but saying anything negative about Obama and his supporters ACTUALLY meant that you didn't want to vote for a black man...which was of course utterly untrue.
don't worry about it tho: I think Clinton's supporters will come around. John McCain helped immensely by giving that AWFUL speech the nite Obama won. what kind of Democrat would vote for HIM?!
one more point:
girls these days really do not have the historical knowledge to understand what it was like back in the bad old days (I have a 17-year-old daughter so I know this from personal experience.)
they don't know what it was like before Roe v. Wade, or know what it was like to hear the boss to say "I gave that promotion to Jim because he has a family to support and you will just leave when you get married," and all that sort of thing. we talk about Supreme Court appointments being so important, but I guarantee you the younger generation has no idea what it used to be like--and could be like again.
I wish all those girls could understand how Hillary Clinton and others like her really were trailblazers, and how important it is for these young people to honor their achievements, regardless of who they voted for.
June 9, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't really agree that girls today don't know whats happening or that there is blatent sexism in their lives.
1. They realize the pressures on them on their appearance is a very real thing that needs to be dealt with every day. My youngest fell into the trap and went from 125lbs...to 90lbs. in the course of her Sophmore year in HS. In all its virulent forms it is the most sexist thing our society is imposing its young women today. There are theory after theory on why this is and all are probably true. The end result is still the same. Young girls feel the appearance pressure from a very young age. The same cant be said for young boys.
2. Girls outperform boys on every academic level. And it isn't a new phenomenon. Yet, in every level of every part of society girls aren't rising to the top levels. Why? Sexism. One only needs to attend a few High School or College Graduations to see what is happening. Yet, in the Business and Gov't world we don't see hardly any effect at all.
Just two small examples that I have heard repeatedly from my daughters. But, I do think that they understand the world better than we give them credit for.
June 9, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
gretz -- I have a question that has been bugging the heck out of me, almost mentioned it in my post above. You say "a lot of us were turned off by the charge that anyone who didn't vote for Obama was somehow a closet racist". I've heard that a lot - what you said, but I honestly did not see or hear what you're alluding to.
I never heard Obama ever even suggest anything like that ("if you don't vote for me or if you disagree with me, you're being racist"); I don't recall anyone on his staff saying - or hinting - that, in speech or writing; I don't rememeber any time when any of his 'official' surrogates saying or implying that. I actually didn't see it very much at all on this or other blogs or comment sections. (Obama and others did acknowledge that there are some people who would not vote for him simply because he's black, but that's an entirely different thing.)
Yes, there were some cries of racism (usually from someone unconnected to the Obama campaign) in response to some racist or arguably racist statements, but I never - ever - heard someone being called a racist because they disagreed with Obama's economic policy or didn't like the health care system he proposed. But that's what your statement implies, and it's a statement I've heard over and over again from people writing comments here and elsewhere, from conservative talking heads, from Clinton supporters like Geraldine Ferraro, and from some people on Clinton's staff (tho never Hillary herself, I don't believe).
It feels like one of those things that's been said so often it's accepted as fact when there just isn't a real-life basis for it. Those things that make me want to go beat my head against a wall. Can you - or anyone - give me an example where someone made a criticism of Obama, one that was unrelated to the issue of race (where folks could argue for years), and got called a racist for it? I'm just not convinced that it happened - only that it's become one of those created-by-repitition truths.
I dont mean this to be an attack, gretz -- truly. You sound very level-headed and thoughtful (and TOO, TOO RIGHT about how terrible it was for women before Roe v Wade!!!), so I was surprised to see the same old charge that I hear from so many directions it sounds like an echo chamber in your post. I pretty sure you wouldn't say it without believing it, and I guess I want to know why you believe it. If that's fair to ask -- I know those impressions are built up over time, but just one or two examples if you recall any.
Thank you.
June 9, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamawon: I didn't mean to imply that girls do not KNOW the history. what I meant was that they do not truly understand what it was like when, say, abortion was illegal, so it's harder for them to imagine a world where it might be illegal again.
Elizabeth2: I wish I could remember a specific comment to give you, but I don't. I can tell you that I've personally been accused of being a racist on these TPM boards repeatedly because I questioned Obama's readiness to be president.
I've watched TV talking heads explaining a Clinton primary win by implying that those voters (see esp. West Virginia) weren't going to vote for a black man anyway.
I have heard people say that "experience" and "values" are code words for "I don't want to vote for a black man," which is just silly. we saw what happened to Gerry Ferraro and heard her called a racist aging bitch and we felt personally offended.
I agree with you that it rarely came from the Obama campaign itself , and I don't blame him for it. that's why I believe that most Clintonistas will eventually vote for the Democratic ticket.
if I have time I will try to find some egregious examples for you just so you know I'm not completely making it up! however, if as you say you've seen other people saying the same things, there has got to be some basis for this feeling whether it's true or not, if you know what I mean. it's a misperception that has to be corrected.
part of the reconciliation efforts should be to assure the Clinton voters that Barack Obama is THEIR candidate too and cares about their concerns. as I said, I don't think this will be too tough. we all want the Repubs out of the White House!
June 9, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
gretz -- Thank you very much for understanding that it was a quite legitimate question. This often-repeated accusation has been driving me batty. As you say, there has to be some basis, but I've just not seen it and when I've asked, no one's been willing/able to be specific.
Your personal example - being called racist for questioning Obama's readiness - is *precisely* what I was looking for, however: something that has nothing to do with his race leading to an inflamatory, conversation-ending accusation of racism. What you describe was unwarranted and inappropriate, and I'd resent like crazy myself. (And maybe if my name were Edward rather than Elizabeth I might have gotten 'sexist' comments to some of my non-gender-related critiques of Hillary -- and would have resented that just as thoroughly.)
Geraldine F .. well, I'm not real rational about her, I'm afraid. She was very unqualified for her VP candidate position (most of us had been hoping for Diane Feinstein, who I guess *was* the choice until the last minute), and the loss that year, with a wonderful presidential candidate, hurt a lot. Then in 1988, when I heard her say about Jesse Jackson the same thing she said this year about Obama (basically that no one would be paying any attention to him if he weren't black), I just lost it!! It might even be a valid thing for someone to say ---- but NOT her! (Sounds strange, but I actually don't think her problem is racism -- it's almost too shallow for that: politics, sour grapes, wanting the spotlight, and okay some genuine desire to see a woman candidate win, so you hit with what's there.)
But with that example and with minimizing the primary victories (in both directions - his because blacks were voting for him, hers because whites were voting against him) race is already in the conversation and I guess, unfortunately, it's pretty easy for accusations to get tossed around. ------- But for a supposed supporter to cry 'racist' if someone makes an unrelated criticism (or the same with 'sexist'), they are not helping their candidate. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Anyway, thank you-- and if you find or remember them, I would like to hear some other examples. It's gotten too much traction and now it hurts all of us, because he's the Democratic nominee.
I hope most Clinton supporters can become as 'big picture' as you seem to be. She did a wonderful job on Saturday making just that case to them - it was a masterful speech and I am actually looking forward to what is next for her.
June 9, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Geraldine Ferraro is maybe not everybody's perfet example of a sane and rational person ;-) . but the larger point is that she was attacked as a vicious racist when, as you say, I don't think that is what's going on there. and not only that, but attacked as an aging, sagging, irrelevant old lady. the whole tenor of the campaign was often like that.
however...now...
I do think we can all come together. I and the other crabby old ladies of the world just want to be reassured that Obama knows we are here, and that our concerns are important and real. the rest will come naturally as we continue to hear the candidates on the issues and realize that John McCain is NOT any kind of choice that we can support.
Democrats in 08!
June 10, 2008 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment