The Cost of Insisting on a Hillary Victory

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-bergthold/the-selfish-gene-is-femal_b_102784.html

With apologies to Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene), I have to point out a noticeable selfishness on the part of some Democratic women voters. When Hillary Clinton declared she was "in it to win", many women around the country felt a rush of pride and hope. As Senator Clinton progressed throughout the primary season, she galvanized women all over the country, who came out to work for her and vote for her.

But now that Clinton is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic party, we are hearing a terrible moaning and whining on the part of Clinton's women supporters, even to the point that some are saying they will not vote for Obama in the Fall. As much as many of us would have liked to see a woman President, it has become apparent that to insist on a woman candidate is mainly about "us" not about what the majority of Democratic voters may want or need. It is selfish of us to insist on a Clinton victory, and appalling to hear such women leaders as Geraldine Ferraro implying she might not vote for Obama because she is so disappointed that Hillary cannot win.

<snip>

Selfish women like the ones who are grousing about Hillary's loss are precariously close to embarrassing our entire gender. If we can fight for a nomination as good or better than any man (and Hillary has fought as hard as any man would or could), then we ought to be able to lose as good or better than a man. That is, losing without pouting, without recriminations, without blaming -- the media, our opponent, men, etc. I so want women voters and Hillary Clinton to be exemplary losers. There is nothing to be gained now by this complaining and finger pointing. It has been over for months, and insisting on having Clinton fight to the finish is not only somewhat unique in political campaigns (most candidates bow out long before the so-called 'end'), it has been undoubtedly damaging to the fight against McCain in the Fall.

Clinton's argument that she can still win, as she has been proclaiming on the campaign trail for weeks, is completely incomprehensible to anyone who can count and dishonest to those who cannot.

<snip>

Would that victory be worthwhile? Would that victory be a feminist victory? What would we have proved? Only that women are the most selfish of all voters.

Women who support Hillary to a fault are not strong feminists. They are stuck in some sort of vindictive world where they're taking out their man hate on Obama. The obvious fact that Hillary cannot win doesn't matter to them; they don't care about rules and rationality. They would probably follow her right off a cliff.

If these women were truly feminists and cared about women they would do everything in their power to keep McCain from office since he has promised to appoint ultra-conservative judges to the SC.

As a woman, I cannot relate to them; I don't understand their way of thinking.

PB

Good luck with that.

and I totally agree:thumbsup:

have nothing excep clinging on to hilary because she's a woman but they conveniently haven't noticed she doesn't act like one.

.....men have been notorious selfish BASTARDS for millennia....we haven't even had the goddamn RIGHT to vote for a century yet. :eyes:

Sure some men have been selfish BASTARDS...Maybe a lot of us. POssibly even most of us at times.

But the point of the article is that women have had a choice to emulate the best or the worst of behaviors, regardless of gender. Those women who insist on helping to take the country down a dark path (i.e. helping to make McCain president) because they didn't get their way this time are doing a disservice to the very cause and values they claim to represent.

....and don't even get me started on how MEN have done disservice to the very causes and values they claim to represent...this whole mess is beyond FUBAR and will continue to remain so...we're all still animals regardless of our intellect and it shows more and more as time marches on....

isn't good for our party, and if our party loses I promise you it will not be better for women. There are many women I can see running successfully in the next few elections and I'd be very happy to see Obama choose a woman as a running mate. Hillary doesn't mix with an Obama administration, I'm sorry, and she caused a lot of the bad blood and division herself.

....I've not said one thing pro or con against either candidate in this election so don't preach to me mmmkay.

I don't care what happens in November now, and that's a big problem for Howard Dean, who's the one who's really wrecking the party. He backed the weaker candidate out of spite, and now he'll be known for losing the unlosable election.

:thumbsup:

the honest women Democrats who supported Clinton but realize that it's in the party's best interest to vote against McCain in the GE, and the spoiled rotten selfish little brats that would put McCain in the White House just because they didn't get their way?

Now, are you one of the selfish ones, or are you an adult?

Will you withhold your support in November, or will you do the right and mature thing for the good of the country?

....I've not commented ONCE in this forum or on this thread who I support or don't...so just assume whatever you'd like..you will regardless of anything I say...or don't.

You chose to be insulted when the point was not necessarily directed at you, so rather than 'assuming' you were one of the spoiled brats, I asked whether you were one of them or not.

If you are planning on not voting for the Democrat in November because 'your' candidate isn't there, then you are the selfish child we're talking about here.

If you will do the right thing, and at least vote for the Democrat, then you are an adult.


The only reason you should have any trouble answering that question is if you are the child. An actual adult will not have a problem answering.

So which is it?

....and will do so as long as I have the opportunity...though it seems to me they're the spoiled brats who...once given the power...still can't act according to their promises.

to do the jobs we gave them the majority for... and they've done little.

It's going to be a great deal of work, and we'll all have to ride them hard to get the hearings we need and the withdrawal from Iraq. Part of that will be making sure a Democrat goes to the White House.

I'm in.... you?

....it's too ingrained in me not to be. :hi:

I just wanted to say that many of us notice your unfailingly kind and gracious attitude- even when it is difficult. You are much appreciated:)

Why, thank you.

I must tell you though, while I certainly consider myself a 'good' person, I really would have to squeeze into a different personality to become 'nice'.

I like to think that I treat people who deserve it with respect. I respect the majority of Clinton and Obama supporters. I even still respect Clinton although I am very disenchanted with some of her methods. Clinton has been strong, effective, and indefatiguable above and beyond the call.... and it's shown.

I will be 'nice' to anyone who shows respect to my positions whether they agree with them or not. I will be 'nice' to Clinton/Obama supporters who do not lie, mischaracterize, threaten to childishly withold their support for the Democratic candidate, and who are willing to answer questions or back up their assertions.

After that, the 'nice' runs out very quickly, and I will tell someone in no uncertain terms if they are being a child or a shithead. I have done this with both Obama and (but mostly) Clinton supporters. I will do this without compunction because most of these people will not change their foolish behavior no matter what they are told. Certainly I know how to gently prod such individuals to introspection, but frankly, I find it a little cathartic in such times just to lambast those who deserve it.

Those who deal with it out of the gate, and agree at the juncture I often try to create to pursue a rational exchange (I like to test people to see if intellectual willpower to overcome the indignation I create :evilgrin:), wind up with a great deal of my respect.

So, I really don't deserve to be called 'nice', 'fair' maybe, but thank you anyhow. I really love all the caring, rational people on DU no matter who they support.

I've also noticed you tend to be one of the 'nice' people about... thanks for that!

You really add so much to the quality of the discourse here. I think the respect and restraint you show is what I'm reading as "nice"...

BTW, telling other people they are nice and giving them roses also qualifies as "nice":)

in a veritable sea of bullshit.

....it's been a long time since I've seen you post. :hi:

The bullshit seems to get deeper and deeper...missed you though!! :loveya:

:hi: nice to see you. i don't come around as much because the acrimony and mean-spiritedness is a major drar :thumbsdown: bullshit piled upon bullshit these days. :hi:

You can't have it both ways. Sorry, toots.

was made with fingerpaint :rofl:

I remember from back in the day...way back :)

Surely it's possible to criticize HRC without recourse to misogyny? Thread titles like "The Selfish Gene is Female" only inflame and disrupt what ought to be a period of reconciliation. :thumbsdown:

I think that the article was ALSO wrongly named and greatly detracts from a few interesting questions that are raised within it. It's the type of title that will make people just dismiss it out of hand because it's very divisive and controversial, so I agree with you perhaps indirectly

waiting on the reconciliation. as unbelievable as it might seem to many on this forum, i suspect that a pretty significant percentage of hillarys supporters won't vote for obama. they feel like hillary got a raw deal and all the arguments that the country can't stand 4 more years of gop leadership isn't going to sway them. i think it would be the same if hillary had won the nomination. many of obamas supporters wouldn't have voted for hillary.
probably the majority of her supporters will vote for the democrat in november, but i'm not as confident as some of the posters here that everybody will fall in line and forgive and forget. the losing side has been beat up on pretty good. i saw a post yesterday remarking how most of hillarys supporters had been run off from here. i've also read posts that proclaimed that in real life people won't let the actions of anonymous posters on an internet forum determine how they vote. that's absolutely incorrect. there are voters who don't think obama is the best candidate and all other things being equal the actions of his supporters could in fact be the tipping point. this isn't a unity post. i think whatever damage there is has already been done, so trying to reconcile now just seems like pandering. jmo

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Women are supposed to shut up and sit down?

Go back to the cave.

There is a reason this won't go to the convention.

Is actually a meme.

Most of us live in the material world, keeping the wolf away from the door.

If Ted does it - that's fine. If Hillary does it - she and her supporters are selfish. Double standard is astounding.

Go Hillary!!

:rofl:

There is no shortage of white female politicians out there. I'd prefer one that Faux News doesn't have 10 years of dirty reruns on.

When little spoiled brats stomp their feet and claim they'd sooner let McCain win, we're all just supposed to pretend they're behaving like adults?

Sorry, but when you act like a spoiled little brat, don't get upset when someone calls you a spoiled little brat... but I suppose that would be keeping character.

Grow up.

This is best settled among women. I really couldn't contribute much - not like that's stopped me before - but the people who were dismissive when there were cries of racism really pissed me off, and this is sorta the same thing but on the other side of the coin.

I appreciate your sanity.

It's about some of us finding Obama a totally inadequate candidate.

Why would should I vote for someone who I don't think is prepared for the job?

Backwards we speak.

whose sense of entitlement is causing them to act like children.

And this;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5800373
-Otherwise proves you wrong. He's as qualified as she is, you just pick and choose your own BS criteria.

He's well-qualified, that's a simple fact I needn't make up.

Clinton supporters seem to think that she is 'entitled' by virtue of their insistance that she be the nominee despite the fact that she's lost. The willingness to overturn the will of the majority of people and delegates is a far greater indication of a 'sense of entitlement' than looking at the math and saying 'he's got it'. SHE is sending out those talking points, SHE is insisting that it should happen.

And no, don't go so low to pull up the 'popular vote' bullshit; She wanted the supers to side with her while she was still behind. I don't hold that against her, but if we're talking 'sense of entitlement', that goes a hell of a lot farther than Obama has.

Classic projection... just amazing.

We had a chance in this campaign not only to build on the Democrat's advantage due to the unpopularity of George Bush and the strong feeling that the country needs a change. And there was real debate about the issues in this campaign, for a while, especially when there were televised debates featuring all the candidates. But after Obama's success in Iowa the election math changed - and I've lived in Iowa, I have witnessed and participated in the caucuses there and all the buildup before the caucuses at the "retail politics" level. I have a friend, in fact, who lives just north of Fort Dodge, Iowa and is the Clinton organizer for her county, and she was sad to see the turn in support because of her support for Clinton, but she recognizes that it was Obama's skill in working with smaller groups of voters that made the difference in the caucuses.

OTOH, after she started to lose advantage in name recognition, superdelegates, and money after Iowa, Clinton's dramatic "breakdown" in New Hampshire was the first of many attempts to make this campaign about her - about her quest to be president rather than the nation's need for change. We've moved on since then to "hardworking Americans, white Americans," with Clinton trumpeting her ability to get Dixiecrat votes in a primary as if this is 1908 instead of 2008. Even with a black candidate in the race, based on Clinton's rhetoric African American women are not referenced when women's votes are described and African Americans are left out of the working class, just to add to the false perception that Obama appeals to a small group of Democrats. You can go to a community college on loans and grants and according to Clinton's supporters, you're an "elite," especially if you like your coffee with a shot of espresso. It's ridiculous that these continuous slights go on constantly even on a Democratic site.

We can agree to disagree about who's the best candidate, but I hope that doesn't stop us from discussing the issues. But I've seen your posts multiple times, Beacool, and I have seen little discussion of issue differences and preparation differences between the two remaining candidates. Instead, you call Obama "an empty suit," who is a Harvard graduate with honors, a civil rights attorney, a former professor at one of the most competitive universities in the country, a successful state legislator, and an inspiring figure for many people who support him in this campaign. We seem to be all about love for Edwards on this site - he has limited political experience, less time in elective office than Obama. I've asked this question numerous times - why does Edwards get a pass on the "experience" question where Obama doesn't? I would love to hear an answer on that.

I like civil discussion of the candidate's positions, and I signed up for DU because that's what I like to engage in. Who we all vote for is our choice, but political dialogue and individual/collective action is the only positive way forward. That's my aim and my goal as I prepare to organize for Obama in the general and to stay involved in progressive action in as many ways and venues as possible. To me, that's what Obama inspires, and a majority of Democrats share that view.

I don't see the substance of your opposition to Obama. You describe his physical appearance and not his issue positions. Clinton supporters rightly oppose it when conversation centers on her pantsuits.

I'm always open to my opinions on the issues being challenged - I want to be better informed. Why, substantively, do you support Clinton more?

I can't wait to see his respon.... his... hello? Hello?

Uhh... where'd he go?

Amazing how that works.

I'm sure you'll be back to answer it... I mean, it's not as though i've asked dozens of people to support their unwillingness to support Obama and had them dissappear rather than answer. :eyes:

Here, this may help;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5800373

Would you like me to send you a PM to remind you about answering tomorrow?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6058643&mesg_id=6059676

Sorry there buddy, but 'He's too slick' doesn't meet the 'substance' criteria of the question.

If you base your support on subjective superficialities like that, then your opinion isn't worth jack shit.

Now read the link in my last post and get educated. I don't suffer ignorance like yours very well, you shouldn't suffer from ignorance either.

All a person can do is invite dialogue...thanks.

Time for the rules committee and the superdelegates to step up, don't you think? The voters have spoken, all except for Montana, South Dakota (?), and Puerto Rico. Probably a net win in delegates for Obama.

The netroots wanted to create a candidate, and found a spokesmodel.

Hillary has been outstanding since she appeared in Time magazine in 1969. Arguably, she would have gone farther faster on her own without the detour to Arkansas.

The real change would be the human priorities of her administration, her toughness and guts -- as opposed to his shying away from debates when the going got tough -- and the breaking of the glass ceiling at last for millions of other women.

Obama is a "spokesmodel" now? More dismissive language that says nothing about Obama himself.

Actually, the part of Clinton's resume I like best is her experience in the Watergate hearings. She also did some effective work with the Children's Defense Fund, though Marian Wright Edelman from that organization has some provocative things to say recently based on Clintons' earlier advocacy for children and the Clinton's support of welfare reform.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/034

There are some things I liked about Bill Clinton as president, mainly on the fiscal side and to some extent in diplomacy and a few domestic policies such as family leave. His was the only presidency that shrunk the size of the federal government, out of all the Republicans who have not managed or tried to do so. However, he did not manage to shrink the size of the defense establishment, and Hillary Clinton really lost me with her IWR vote, and various saber rattling over the years. Some other Democrats voted for the IWR, including Kerry whom I voted for in the unrealized hope of stopping Bush, but I did not support John Edwards in this campaign because of that vote.

It's a little hard to separate Bill and Hillary Clinton on some issues, it's theoretical. But the other issues where I disagree include the strong support for NAFTA by Clinton, which supposedly Hillary is against, a general unwillingness to be a righteous voice against torture and American military hegemony, unethical fundraising that goes back to the Lincoln Bedroom of her husband's administration, her general opposition to transparency (Rose Law Firm records are still sealed) and a related difficulty in maintaining strong alliances across Democratic constituiencies, and a decidedly mixed record as an administrator and leader of initiatives. I recently read Bernstein's _A Woman in Charge_, and a long time ago I read Roger Morris's _Partners in Power_; the Bernstein book is more conventional but critical; the Morris book is more salacious and even more critical.

I know that Democrats hesitate to even discuss these issues, but I think it's inexcusable the kind of "damage control" that the Clintons engaged in due to Bill's "proclivities," that have had real impacts on women that did not deserve how they were treated, and has certainly had an impact on the electibility of Democrats natinoally. Even Betsy Wright, one of the primary people on "bimbo patrol" in Arkansas, was thrown "under the bus" when it served the Clintons. Also, I have never seen the Clintons as good team players when it comes to winning electoral margins that aided lower-ticket Democrats; Bill Clinton didn't even visit my home state of Nebraska until 2000. So in addition to the differences on issues, I am confident in Obama and Howard Dean as stewards of the party to help strengthen the national competitiveness of Democrats, as has occurred in Montana, Virginia, Kansas, even Western Wisconsin where I live.

All this being said, naked appeals to Dixiecrat racism have just put me over the top - I can no longer support either Clinton actively, though I'll do my best to vote for her in the GE if she wins through an honest process (what that will be, I don't know).

There are a lot of glass ceilings to break - I agree, having to do with race as well as gender. They are both significant. I don't know about "toughness and guts," I'm not sure if I know what that is. I do know that the two most underappreciated voting blocks among Democrats are African Americans and liberals, and being both, I do not like to see the importance of those voting blocks minimized. All of this leads me to support Obama, but I can't take credit for "creating him," as you say.

:eyes:

That, and it's apparent that you have chosen to remain ignorant over his qualifications in order to support your delusional perspective.

He is perfectly well-qualified, and has similar expertise to Clinton. The fact that you will not even look at that proves what a spoiled rotten little child you are.

Read this;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5800373

(but you won't because it proves you wrong.)

And I'm starting to think I might have been wrong about this;
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5776568&mesg_id=5776568

-She has me questioning my early affinity for her by twisting her blind followers into screaching children.


Please grow up.

by women voters who would rather massage their own spitefulness than protect fundamental women's rights. I'll be laughing at the irony.

:sarcasm:

I've got two daughters.

who will allow McCain to win out of spite.

for people to have a strong opinion about this race at this point. I'm open to any theories as I don't pretend to understand it fully.

People ARE wondering what is motivating the Clinton campaign now. Is it the noble struggle over the finish line long after the race is lost-- to cheering crowds, like the stragglers at the marathon? Is it the pursuit of the absolute last dollar in contributions? Is it that the train has no brakes? Is the VP slot the big prize now? The trajectory they are on now seems more than dishonest--I'd call it deceptive. It's also getting so self-destructive as to be masochistic now. This article is calling for reason, calling for a concession very soon, even as it offends by language.

Selfishness is a strong word for HRC rabid supporters--I'd prefer to think myopia or obsession that is hard to control. Obsession born not only of the unfairness to women in the past but also a result of the extreme abuse of the Bu$hites.

I don't want yet another Nice Guy candidate, I want a ruthless and vindictive BITCH. <-- Yeah, I said it.

Nothing would strike fear in the enemy's heart quite like a woman in power, a woman they have wronged. But that's not to be. Such is life.

or saintly mother who can flip to bitch when necessary....she's flexible that way....the Protectress

But I also see that this "selfish Hillary and her selfish supporters" may just be one of several smokescreens hiding the fact that they need more time to figure out how to proceed--the Corporate masters are desperate and bounty is demanded.

I'm starting to see the concept that Hillary may not have the OPTION to concede....she seems less driven than emprisoned somehow, in a web of her own making....

Sometimes it's hard to even define the enemy when you see weirdness like this.

I'm continually amazed at how Obama supporters fail to see how bad that looks.

I don't see selfishness or being a bitch as a bad thing, necessarily. Ask any woman who has had a no-good boyfriend about that one.

to be a fighter. I think everybody, male or female, around here relates to that necessity after 8 years of Bu$h. I've always admired that in Hillary.

What I'm saying is I'm seeing that the noble trail blazer Hill appears to be (an image which has sold very well) may not really be the truth at all. If she goes on to the convention it will be a clear sign that she is a puppet being used to give those in control more room to work their game. I don't think they ever imagined that Obama would get this far, and they are going to try to stop him yet.

I'm not buying any of this "protectress of the voters" or "loyalty to supporters" stuff anymore. This is crazyness going on here. Hill's in deep with the opposition, a real Lieberman. She is compromised. She should get out ASAP. That would indicate she's had it. But if she goes on to the convention, then...
that would be really insane. I mean true insanity.

I see no harm in reserving judgement until then.

"Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

or Hillarious...nice!

They can't raise money, get endorsements, get campaign parties going, nothing while waiting for the prima donna to exit the stage.

:grr: :nuke:

Blaming the press and complaining about being outspent. He'd be laughed out of the race. But we INDULGE Hillary for some reason I just can't fathom. Maybe it's guilt over what she was put through in the WH.

I'm a little tired of people expecting me to support Hillary because I have certain body parts. I thought women's liberation was about women being free to make choices and I made my choice for the one I think will be best for our country. It really had nothing to do with gender, which is the way it should be. I saw very little sexism aimed at Hillary during this campaign and that I did see did not come from Obama. It is distressing to see so many women crying "sexism" because their candidate lost.

Thanks!

:blush:

:thumbsup:

:rofl: (the picture)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8pv-HO_P2A

Biden lost, Dodd lost, Richardson lost, Edwards lost, Kucinich lost, Gravel may still be going. He's in it to win it.