Great article, Guru U!   

 Isn't it the very essence of hypocrisy for feminists to demand women vote for Hillary?

Sure is, Twin.  One of the whole purposes of the modern feminist movement was to encourage women to think for themselves, to challenge the status quo, and to not automatically fall into line with conventional wisdom i.e. ye olde paternalism.

So endorse, recommend, advise, suggest, counsel...pick a word.  But demand? Errrrr, no. 

(Princess, I pity the person of any gender who would demand you or I do anything we didn't want to do....hehehehehehe).

;)

Queenie 

AA voters on the pro-Hillary sites I frequent tell me they are facing alot of pressure to go with Obama.  Mayor Nutter from PA received threats for his backing of Hillary. 

So some people of color and some people of the female gender can be controlling.  What's your point beyond that?

Why wouldn't this article be of interest to some male voters too?

I've called the political correctness swat team :) 

-dale 

 

 

 

Guilty as charged, Dale.  I'll try to do better. Bob U.

Bob,

As usual, another good post. In reading the article, I tend to share Gloria Feldt's observations and concerns. The article does raise an interesting question with respect to women and the feminist movement.

One of the criticisms men have often made against women seeking office is that women are often too emotional and their emotional natures could end up clouding their judgments when making tough decisions.

I can fully understand why feminists would support HRC's candidacy. However, to hear ardent feminist supporters of Clinton state they would switch their support to McCain if Obama becomes the nominee, IMO, supports the outmoded claims made by men. If you look at the two parties and the voting options open to women in this general election, why would seemingly intelligent feminists vote against their own self interests?

Because sensei,

They are not buying Obamas puff! And that is all it is, puff, puff...

Lulu

P.S. I have no dog in this hunt, just thought I'd give my 2 cents.

 

sensei:

.

I can fully understand why feminists would support HRC's candidacy. However, to hear ardent feminist supporters of Clinton state they would switch their support to McCain if Obama becomes the nominee, IMO, supports the outmoded claims made by men. If you look at the two parties and the voting options open to women in this general election, why would seemingly intelligent feminists vote against their own self interests?

And what self-interests are those, sensei?  McCain has no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade, if that's what your refering to.  Would it surprise you to know women have interests beyond that?  For example, my capital gains and dividends will not be taxed at a higher rate under McCain.  He's calling for the child tax deduction to be doubled.  Those things are in my self-interest too, are they not?  Do you assume we HRC supporters are just being emotional, bitter women (probably "that time of the month") when we say we won't vote for Obama?  You don't think we've maybe, just maybe, checked on McCain to see if we could live with him as prez for the next 4 years?

        I for one, am completely baffled, as to why Mrs Clinton is not winning the Democratic nomination by a landslide. She's smart, educated, speaks well, shes tough and shes.....female! At the highest levels , past and present, by and large, the world over has been governed by males. Look at the mess much of the world is in and continues to be. I say its time to have a female at the highest level. I think a woman President might approach problems differently, solve problems differently and maybe better. Certainly a woman leader could do no worse  than most male leaders have done! You may lose a unique opportunity for change.

eileen:

sensei:

.

I can fully understand why feminists would support HRC's candidacy. However, to hear ardent feminist supporters of Clinton state they would switch their support to McCain if Obama becomes the nominee, IMO, supports the outmoded claims made by men. If you look at the two parties and the voting options open to women in this general election, why would seemingly intelligent feminists vote against their own self interests?

And what self-interests are those, sensei?  McCain has no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade, if that's what your refering to.  Would it surprise you to know women have interests beyond that?  For example, my capital gains and dividends will not be taxed at a higher rate under McCain.  He's calling for the child tax deduction to be doubled.  Those things are in my self-interest too, are they not?  Do you assume we HRC supporters are just being emotional, bitter women (probably "that time of the month") when we say we won't vote for Obama?  You don't think we've maybe, just maybe, checked on McCain to see if we could live with him as prez for the next 4 years?

eileen,

I don't think many voters are simply single-issue types of voters. With regard to Roe v Wade, McCain has publicly stated he will be seeking out conservative judges, in the mold of Roberts, Scalia, Alito et.al.. If freedom of choice is a big issue with feminists, then voting for McCain would be voting against that interest.

If you happen to be a voter who is also concerned about the availability of affordable health care, just look at the party's record with regard to this issue in general, and in particular, extending children's heath care . If you go to McCain's website, you'll probably walk away like I did,  thinking he has no understanding of the issues, or anything resembling a coherent plan. Both Obama and Clinton do understand the issues.

If you happen to be a voter who is concerned about global warming, I'm sure you'll find McCain and the Republican party leading the fight.:))  Look at the party's stand on the Kyoto Accords. Heck, it's only been recently where McCain has come out and said that it might be a problem. They've been behind the 8 ball for years on this issue.

If you happen to be concerned about our involvement in Iraq, which is a big reason for me personally, then the options again are pretty clear.

The point I'm trying to make is that many voters have more than one issue they will be voting on this election year. In so far as Clinton and Obama are concerned, I was supportive of either's platform because there wasn't any major policy differences between the two. However, there are major differences between their policies and McCain's policies.

Like I have said on several threads, I happen to like McCain as well. I've always admired and respected his service to our country and admired his political image as a maverick.

Unfortunatley, I feel he as lost his way. By that I mean he's willing to abandon his independent, maverick style and is trying to suck up to the right wing conservatives, which many claim represent the party's base and is the major reason I left the Republican Party.  I personally feel he doesn't have to do this in order to win an edlection, but he does.

I personally don't care what happens with the capital gains tax. I'll be hurt by the increase, but then again, I've never voted for a President based on how their political decisions might affect my personal investments.

Just my 2 cents, which according to my calculations, leaves me 6 cents short of a dime.:)

Always nice to hear your viewpoints.

dimes2:

        I for one, am completely baffled, as to why Mrs Clinton is not winning the Democratic nomination by a landslide. She's smart, educated, speaks well, shes tough and shes.....female! At the highest levels , past and present, by and large, the world over has been governed by males. Look at the mess much of the world is in and continues to be. I say its time to have a female at the highest level. I think a woman President might approach problems differently, solve problems differently and maybe better. Certainly a woman leader could do no worse  than most male leaders have done! You may lose a unique opportunity for change.

.