Monday, January 28, 2008 - Posts
-
sponsorship
Oh my dear Emily, I just read that NOW letter about how Ted Kennedy has supposedly betrayed all women everywhere by endorsing Barack Obama—and I have not seen that many exclamation marks since I read Donna Hanover's book about how great it is being the ex-Mrs. Rudy Guiliani. (In brief, it is great!) Even though Politico's Ben Smith double-checked with NOW to make sure this missile was for real, it's still hard to believe it isn't a prank, of the sort pulled by those guys who yelled, "Iron my shirts!'' at Hillary a couple of weeks ago. (Seems like longer, though, doesn't it?)
This is such an old-fashioned hissy fit, I would not be surprised to wake up tomorrow and read that the sender had gotten up off her fainting couch and apologized: "Silly moi, lost my head there for a minute, on account of PMS. Or not.'' Because it only underscores Kennedy's point about how important it is to "close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.'' And Obama's point that the old politics -- interest-group politics -- will not go quietly. Obama's position on abortion rights is identical to Clinton's, so is the fact that Kennedy has endorsed a man really the outrage here? Or is it that somebody thinks their power base in the Democratic Party is being threatened?
-
sponsorship
"Whoa," says Ben Smith of Politico about the New York chapter of NOW's blast against Ted Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama. Whoa is right. Also woe. Also wow. NOW NY calls the endorsement "the ultimate betrayal," lays into Kennedy for his apparent past legislative sins, which the group previously "hushed," and writes, “And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He’s picked the new guy over us." Lots more fury follows—enough to prompt John Dickerson to wonder if the name Mary Jo Kopechne was in the original draft of NOW's press release.
So, that's it—an endorsement of any candidate but Hillary is a betrayal of the feminist cause? I suppose the more sophisticated version is that interest groups expect the politicians they support to support them blindly in their time of need. This is their time of need, the NY NOW chapter argues, ergo, Kennedy should be with them. But that assumes that the feminist time of need equates with electing Hillary. Would most women, or even most feminists, agree with that? I just can't. And what does this narrow-cast way of evaluating a candidate really have to recommend it? I can't think of anything on that score, either. Can some other women's group please speak up to say that if Kennedy has good reason to think that Obama would be the best president for the country, and a damn fine president for women, then supporting him is A-OK with them?
-
sponsorship
I am also ready for Bill Clinton to sit down. But it's worth pointing out that among white women in South Carolina, Bill disaffection—or whatever turned women away from Hillary—seemed to produced a boost for Edwards rather than for Obama. You're right, Dahlia, that Obama won 53 percent of women over all, which is the first time he has cracked 50 percent. But that was because he won 79 percent of black women (who made up one-third of the total electorate). Hillary won 44 percent of white women—a lower number than her overall support among women in Iowa or New Hampshire—Edwards won 34 percent (higher than Iowa and New Hampshire), and Obama won only 22 percent (lower).
I hate to carp on these divisions, but they're too big to ignore. There's a divide among men, too, and it's almost as wide, just with positions one and two reversed: Edwards got 43 percent of white men, Clinton 29 percent, and Obama 27 percent. Meanwhile, Obama got 82 percent of black men. What, if anything, could alter all the individual calculuses that's causing this heavy identity politics? Or does it all not matter, because all these groups of Democrats will support the eventual nominee in adequate numbers, and it's naive to think that in a primary in which the candidates agree on most of the big issues, people won't be inclined to vote for the one who looks like they do?
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?