The Democratic Party needs to address the fact that many women in this country work and raise children. Women end up being overwhelmed with responsibilities. In the workplace, we're expected to work like men, but we end up the ones who take time off for the kids because our husbands' jobs are considered "more important". We have to work twice as hard to get just as far as men because we have to take up the mommy role, with all the housework it entails, and the contributor to the workforce role. In today's economy, working is necessary for most women with children. The tax system in this country needs to be fixed and because it punishes families with two working parents. Once you just start to make it, you move into a higher tax bracket and get penalized. The Democrats need to address this in terms of how it effects working women.

Scruffus, you are a thousand percent correct. I always use Norway as the exemplar of a country that makes things work for women. The funny thing is changing the male work model betters life for women, men and children. The key is equity - not equality.

I like how you can read the minds of the 11% of women who changed from Obama to McCain. I think either campaign would pay you big bucks to run their show as you may be the only person in the country who can interpret swing voters behavior. Furthermore, it is a fairly stunning observation that those 11% of women are monlithically describable and their actions are all the result of the same phenomenon.

Some might accuse you of stereotyping and oversimplifying a complicated social phenomenon, but I think they just don't want to hear the straight calculated knowledge of someone psychically in tune with the 11% of women who have changed their voting preference. Kudos.

"If all you have to say is that Hillary lost due to her poorly run campaign - you are part of the reason normally Democratic voting women are considering McCain/Palin."

To get this straight, Democrats lose for telling the truth and not pandering nearly enough. Man, I thought I was cynical about politics.

Yab, I seem to have struck a nerve -- at least with you.

Insinuating I am full of shit or perhaps psychic is all well and good -- you partisan hack, but that 11 percent has shifted from Obama to McCain since Palin was announced as McCain's running mate.

Does Yab have any thoughts on why women are fleeing the Obama ticket?

Does Yab have any ideas on how to stem the flight?

Insinuating I am full of shit is all well and good, but that 11 percent has shifted from Obama to McCain since Palin was announced as McCain's running mate. They weren't swing voters. They were in the Obama column and now they are in McCain's...

You know where you can put your kudos.

Skeptic, I am up front about being a cynical realist... it's been in the bio since the start.

Bread and circuses have worked since ancient Rome. Obama needs to start baking a nice big cake that appeals to female voters. Oh, no -- what about Roe is not going to cut it this year.

When I wrote women in my comment to Yab, I meant to write white women are fleeing. It is a horrible privilege based assumption otherwise.

Sadly, I am a creature of this society who has benefited and continues to benefits from all sorts of privilege and it is hard for me to walk the straight and narrow.

The statistic in question is white women.

LT, fair enough. Perhaps you're right and the cynicism is well placed.

I don't have any real insight to answer your question. I'm actually at quite a loss to explain how the blatant pandering of McCain picking a running mate because she is socially conservative and a woman, and clearly not a good person for the job has had such a positive impact for him.

I'm cautiously optimistic that much of this bump will fade in the next two weeks as voters start thinking again about the two guys at the top of the ticket. Many McCain voters who have swung over because they are excited about and impressed with Palin, will start considering the merits of the person who would actually call the shots come the morning of January 21, 2009.

As for your throwaway comment in regards to Roe v Wade, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on that. So far, women and men swing voters haven't been persuaded in significant numbers that their vote could have an impact on the legality of abortion (nevermind actual access). But with Bush's SCOTUS picks and McCain's pledge to follow that route, and Palin's extreme anti-abortion views, it is a more credible threat than ever before. Why do you think many women voters still can't be swayed by that argument?

Look - I apologize for the snarkiness. I'm not a partisan hack. Well, I'm a hack. That's true. Obama is not my savior, though. I want him to win, but I leaned toward Clinton for close to a month before I changed my mind.

I just took exception with this quote:
"These women are still angry at how Clinton was treated. "

I just don't think that the shift in white women's voting preference is that simple. I know there are many women who rightfully are upset at how Clinton was treated, I'm just not sure that that explains this significant change in leaning.

Oh and I am in complete agreement with your ideas for how Obama should "pander" to women to get their support back. Regardless of why they're flocking to Palin, those ideas should be front and center of a Democratic platform.

Skeptic, abortion is already limited for the vast majority of women due to scarcity of providers/clinics, economic considerations, the restrictions the courts have allowed to slip through - like time interval after mandatory counseling, etc.

Roe is a distraction that has allowed women to settle into complacency and many old guard feminists would actually welcome its overturn as it might inspire women to rise up. Getting Roe stopped the march on equal pay for equal work, the ERA, and other important issues. It was like the fire went out.

Palin has already popped off that she thinks abortion is an issue for the states which is the best fig leaf ever.

I could go on - but it would be a post in and of itself. Perhaps I will flesh out my arguments and make it one.

Thanks LT. I'd especially be interested to see how you argue that Roe slowed the other fights.

Access is a big problem, as you point out, that has little to do with the criminality piece. But I take it that you don't think that a reconfigured Supreme Court could very well perform the final evisceration of Roe and make most abortions criminal acts?

Yab. You are so very gracious in apology. Thank you for coming back and clarifying.

Yes -- the dynamics of white femme flight are complex and cannot be attributed only to Palin's boobs and Dem rejection of Clinton -- which is why I want them panders to start flowing from the Dems. Who cares what caused the flight -- they need to fix it and fix it fast before they run out of time or it will be President McCain being sworn in this coming January.

However, I do want to reiterate that the SNL skit highlights the Dem rejection of Clinton. In my feeble post, I was trying to make the point that SNL's humorous take on Palin and Clinton is bittersweet for many women.

My mom got all riled up again when she saw it. She hates how Hillary was treated. She took it personal and the skit ripped her scab off. Her whole ladies who lunch circle is buzzing again like a kicked hornets nest.

Skeptic, only the legislature can make something criminal. Gotta pass a law first before a law can be challenged on its constitutionality and wind up in the lap of them activist judges.

Skeptic, further -- before a judge can don the coveted dusty black SCOTUS robes, they have to make it through the Senate. The Senate has enough Democrats to block any appointment they care too... sadly most don't have Hillary's balls as referenced in the SNL skit and they crumble to executive will. Think Alito and Roberts. And off the topic of the Supremes -- how about those other turds the Senate has let wander in like Mukasey?

Scruffus - totally agree re: tax code adjustments.

LT, I'll be honest, I hadn't read the 11 point swing as being entirely from Obama to McCain, but partly enthusiasm from conservative women. Perhaps I was misreading various articles etc.

What I find fascinating is that even in an election at a time when a lot of people are taking a beating in economic terms, they are still voting against their own interest. To be more explicit, women and working class / lower middle class voters might not get much out of a Democratic administration, but they stand to get less from a Republican administration. Apparently money is not a motivating factor, which apart from the American narrative of a country full of people seeking opportunity.

Not that this has anything to do with your original point, but I can't be bothered with the day-to-day handicapping so I'm just bracing for the inevitable.

Haggis, thanks for stopping by. Your random thoughts are always welcome. Regarding the tendency of the electoral to vote against their economic interests... I refer you to the title of this page.

The interesting and brilliant thing about the skit is how it illustrates, clearly, that both sides are mired in sexist bullshit on a fairly continual basis. Well, that and the fact that Tina Fey is CHANNELING Sarah Palin, which is just eff-ing spooky.

I understand the anger, but I'm saddened that stances on issues, the ones most useful in changing these attitudes are supported by one party, the Democrats, and not supported at all by the other, the Republicans. McCain's move to put Palin by his side was clearly motivated by rampant sexism itself. So, it's disturbing to see people vote for one sexist party over another one.

I wish, when push comes to shove, we could stick with the issues like glue. I agree strongly the the Democratic party let women down. But is the solution to vote for the party that will clearly want to put women back in the kitchen, mouths taped shut?

I wonder if perhaps Obama could unbend a little and talk about Clinton's qualifications for the Supreme Court or about putting her in the cabinet. It's clearly not enough for even her to say it's okay. He must do something.

Frankly, he was an idiot for not making her his running mate. Really, that was idiotic. I know people won't agree, but that's what I think.

Bringing the 11% back to Obama will not happen with the group (is there a group? or is it just me? hm) that wants 50% of representation to be from women, regardless of platform.

How can the irony of her family life be exposed without making Palin a victim? Although your and my family may be just as dysfunctional as Palin’s, is that what you want for yourself and your children? Don’t you want to dream and hope for something different? I do. Beyond the teenage pregnancy issue, the National Enquirer is covering these stories about her teenage children having drug abuse issues and just being out of control as well as her alleged affair. How much of it is true– who knows? But the picture that is portrayed is that her family life is in a mess. She has not taken the time to put her house in order. It is very different from her having it all image that walked across the RNC stage. Once again, the GOP is being disingenuous to women. They have not been honest about the challenges women confront in trying to have it. They are glossing over serious gender issues and cloaking it as sexist when anyone questions it. Herein lies, the true essence of misogyny in denying that there is issues that are specific to gender, career, and family life.

McCain chose a victim as his running mate more than a woman, and nobody loves playing the victim more than Evangelical Christians. No "correct" Democratic strategy is going to change that dynamic.

That being said, I still don't see why a SNL skit would make folks mad at the Democrats. That seems like a total non sequitur to me.

LT, your 11-percent of WHITE women statistic is interesting. Perhaps it wasn't just outrage culled from sexism that is totally responsible for the sudden switch. Perhaps these white women switched sides because Palin's sudden appearance on the McCain ticket gave them an excuse to give into their own racist tendencies.

The same racist tendencies that Clinton deliberately cultivated and fostered during the campaign season and long after she was mathematically eliminated from the race.

The worst supposedly sexist thing that Obama did during the primary season was his failure to repudiate all of the outside (media, internet) sexist attacks on Clinton. These attacks were clearly beneath both Hillary and Obama and as such deserved to be ignored by both camps. Obama nor his campaign ever went after Clinton simply because she was a woman.

However, Hillary and her "the ends justify the means" Rove-ian tactics deliberately and systematically attacked Barack using racist arguments.

However, LT, I agree that Obama and Clinton should be making more public appearances together. He's going to have to bite the bullet and campaign with her for the good of our country. Even though Barack and Michelle are clearly above Hillary and her disgusting tactics.

The last time I checked, nary a vote has been cast. The only "shifting" anyone has done is a result of the "work" of a cottage industry of political pollsters who make a random thousand phone calls every few days and prostitute their "findings" to lazy journalists as "news" that has to be reported on and analyzed to death to try and get some kind of picture of "the state of the nation."

Leaving aside for a moment the sad fact that our two-party political system works to leave the status quo in this country largely unchanged in any given four or eight year period, it should not be difficult to recognize that we are at a real crux with this election and the "choice" is abundantly clear.

We can either agree to extend the rightward arc of the pendulum swing that began with LBJ's fall and the debacle of Vietnam, extend it into ever-more radical and repressive and ignorant territory, or we can recognize the moral, intellectual, social and economic bankruptcy of neo-conservative philosophy and choose to move the pendulum back in the direction that places greater value on our collective well being than on the mythical promise of the American Dream's deification of the individual.

If women as a group have a hard time understanding the circumstances in which we find ourselves (and I don't believe women are nearly as challenged in this regard as are men; I predict women will vote for Obama in far greater numbers than will men), then we will suffer the continued slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.

The Age of Pandering - it's so 20th Century.

And also, I do appreciate your work on this website as a muck-raker for feminist issues.

We need someone on here to be doing the same for issues concerning race.

Lonnie, you are right, of course. Nothing is decided yet. And the white factor, let's not discount its sad and disgusting importance to the closet racists out there.

I do think he needs to do more campaigning, very open campaigning with Clinton. And it might also be good if the Obama supporters could stop talking about whether or not Clinton engaged in race-baiting or swearing that no sexism came from the Obama campaign or the Democratic National Committee at all, because that's just not true and brings everyone back to full circle anger. It's the fact that the sexism was ignored that makes it so very difficult to deal with. It should be acknowledged. It's not that Clinton lost because of sexism. That can only be guessed at. It's that sexism was rampant within the party and many of its female members felt very marginalized at the end, especially when some members of the party said, basically, that they'd come around because there was no other place to go. It was a nasty, stupid thing to say. Obama needs to talk about it. That's the only way to go. He needs to say something. I'd actually like to hear him talk about the issues that differ between parties and the ways women would not benefit from a McCain presidency. Or a Palin presidency, for that matter.

"The last time I checked, nary a vote has been cast. The only "shifting" anyone has done is a result of the "work" of a cottage industry of political pollsters who make a random thousand phone calls every few days and prostitute their "findings" to lazy journalists as "news" that has to be reported on and analyzed to death to try and get some kind of picture of "the state of the nation." "


I am often incensed myself by these reporters and journalists who parrot she same old bullshit their drinking buddies are promulgating while good information is just lying around out there, waiting to be parse, analyzed, and added to the mix.

Then I think about the limits of the medium, and realize that in its current form the television and print news pipelines, which are the ones that seem to drive public discourse, are woefully inadequate to deliver much more than they already are in terms of factual data and well thought out arguments.

I came across something this weekend that was an interesting viewpoint on voters and ideology that I've posted a link to on my blog.

WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? [9.9.08]
By Jonathan Haidt
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

A couple of excerpts:

"Diagnosis is a pleasure. It is a thrill to solve a mystery from scattered clues, and it is empowering to know what makes others tick. In the psychological community, where almost all of us are politically liberal, our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. We can explain how Republicans exploit frames, phrases, and fears to trick Americans into supporting policies (such as the "war on terror" and repeal of the "death tax") that damage the national interest for partisan advantage.

But with pleasure comes seduction, and with righteous pleasure comes seduction wearing a halo. Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats. To see what Democrats have been missing, it helps to take off the halo, step back for a moment, and think about what morality really is."


"Democrats often seem to think of voters as consumers; they rely on polls to choose a set of policy positions that will convince 51% of the electorate to buy. Most Democrats don't understand that politics is more like religion than it is like shopping."

" This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so."


" I [the author] would say that the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way.


"America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom."


The hardest thing in the world is to truly imagine the motivations of a person whose perspective differs from yours. I've been writing fiction for a long time, and it is often a struggle to "leave" who I am to "become" the character long enough to give myself a chance to let the character reach beyond my personal boundaries.

I believe that this is where the Obama campaign's manpower on the ground, all of the canvassing in person, the one on one door knocking by real people, will start to pay off - I would hazard to guess that most people in the country are anesthetized to a certain extent from the influence of television advertising, unless, as all of our local news media prove every night with the litany of murders, robberies and abductions, it is negative information.

LT and Roulette, sexism and racism were both on display during the primaries. Perhaps as a long-time Obama supporter, the Clintons' overt racism was much easier for me to spot. Luckily, there are folks like LT BOHICA who point out the sexism that I had glanced over without noticing. My point in an earlier comment on this blog is that racism is still a factor, and Palin's selection may have given people (especially white women) a guilt free reason to follow their silent racist tendencies and switch over to the Republican ticket. I also suggest that Clinton's racist attacks helped to "legitimize" this pattern.

This year I volunteered with the local Democrats. I was elected locally at our state caucuses as a representative to the state democratic convention. I edit our monthly newsletter. So I know a few Democratic women, I am one.

I don't buy this argument. It isn't what I am hearing. I was at a rally yesterday that was hosted by the Lummi Tribe & the Nooksack Nation as well as a host of other multicultural organizations. I didn't hear one woman say anything like that. I heard a 94 year old Lummi woman elder sing "God Bless America." I heard a profound level of unity in getting the entire Democratic ticket elected. I heard people talk about change being borne of electing people who are committed to change to all levels of government.

I think we are stupidly focused on what the media focuses on and have missed the point of what it means if we focus on what needs to be done when we look at the bigger picture and see that there are people at all levels of government that are being elected to public office. Consistency of focus at all levels of government will bring about change. We can't do it with just a change of President.

About your 11 percent shift, that number will keep changing from now until election day. However, I agree with you about this: "Obama should revive the ERA, promise equitable appointments by his administration across the board." The Women Democrats here are promoting a "We're Not Done Yet!" get out the vote effort, and that is one of our arguments.

I said at the time that given the federal production Obama made of picking a vice-president, it had better be Clinton or Colin Powell, the two most exciting possibilities who happened to be the most qualified as well.But overtly pandering to women at this point would be an error on so many different levels.

1. It would confirm the misbegotten sense that HRC lost because of sexism, when in fact her late season success goes to show that she lost because she had no plan for the immediate aftermath of tsunami Tuesday, and no caucus organization. Change those two factors in her campaign and she wins with remarkable ease.

2. Sarah Palin's biggest electoral appeal, demographically speaking, has been to working class men, who are moved less by the fact that she's a woman than by the woman she is--moosehunting, no nonsense, not unattractive, mother of 5, pro-life etc. Overt pandering to women in general will likely exacerbate the problems with this key demographic. But that just points to the most important reason,

3. The democratic party has lost national election after national election being the party of identity politics. The self-conscious, calculated strategy of pandering to women will undoubtedly make some people feel better--identity politics generally do--but it a proven loser when it comes to winning swing states or getting to 270. Given the racial headwind against which he is running, Obama in particular simply cannot win this race being a constituency politician. Since he can no longer maintain the aura of post-partisanship, he must at least maintain an aura of post-factionalism.

This is one of those occasions that alleviate one's ingrained cynicism about politics, i.e. when the ideologially suspect thing to do is also tyhe tactically unwise thing to do.

LT - Thank you for this post. I loved the
SNL skit, funny and not disrespectful. I
completely understand why your mom
and her Lunch Circle are buzzing like
hornets.

For the first time in a very long time I
agree with Paglia's blog over at Salon
Central: Palin as a "frontier feminist"
While I emphatically do not agree with
Palin's positions on social issues I under-
stand her appeal.

I think Obama and his DNC buddies are
very paternalistic, along with the GOP, so
I don't know how possible it will be for
him to win over white women.

At any rate, here are two articles re Palin
that I think show some of the white woman
mindset:
(NYT writer at a Palin rally)
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/
11/no-laughing-matter/index.html

Palin and Mothering:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/
content/article/2008/09/11/AR20080911
03630.html

Odettaroulette: you said: "But is the solution
to vote for the party that would clearly want to put women back in the kitchen, mouths taped shut?" Isn't Sarah Palin the very antithesis
of that?

Edgar Alverson: " Racist tendencies that Clinton cultivated and fostered" I guess it
all depends on your viewpoint. As an
ardent HRC supporter it was Obama who
dishonestly pushed the racism charge
against her.

haggismold: I am bracing for the inevitable
too, whatever it may be.

LT, I'm sorry to get off topic, but I can't let a couple of your comments go unchallenged on abortion.

Yes, a state legislature would have to pass an unconstitutional criminal ban in order for the Supreme Court to destroy Roe v Wade. But a lot of them have already done it. Check out this link for the 15 states with near total abortion bans on the books. All it takes is one state AG to try to enforce them. Other states have passed crazy bans in recent years. South Dakota has one on the ballot right now. So it is quite easy to see a vehicle to the Supreme Court for overturning or completely carving out Roe.

As for the Senate stopping further right wing appointments, are you referring to the same gutless folks that approved Alito and Roberts?

DakiniDancer--No, she's not.

She's what I call the "Laura Schlesinger" type. She puts herself in a position of power in order to tear other women down. Her stance would put the women's movement back 50 years or more. I think it's a grave mistake to assume that because she has children and a job that she will be in favor of all women having children and jobs. Or that she believes in feminism in any way, shape or form.

She would certainly turn back Roe v. Wade. She's in favor of banning books. She's a bit of a liar, especially about her stance on pork barrel spending. She wants to teach creationism in school. She has little to no foreign policy experience. Did I mention the fact that she's a liar? She evidently confuses church and state.

As I said earlier, I wish we could vote on the issues most important to us and be done with it. At least then there'd be some integrity to the process. Is it really voting on the issues to vote for McCain while saying you are a feminist? I sincerely don't get that stance.

I do understand the sexism, believe me. If you feel strongly that the Democratic party isn't supporting women, then vote for someone you think does. But don't say that's Sarah Palin. Because it's not.

I like the Dr. Laura analogy.

If you're looking to make a feminist statement with your vote shun Palin in favor of McKinney.

Odetteroulette: Dang it! You forced me to go to
Laura Schlesinger's website! She does NOT support
Palin: http://www.drlaurablog.com/2008/09/02/
sarah-palin-and-motherhood/

I certainly do not intend to vote for McCain, all
I am going for is OBJECTIVITY

When HRC suspended her campaign I switched
to the GREEN PARTY...my girls Cynthia and Rosa
are gonna cruise to victory in Nov....boy, are
people going to be surprised Wednesday morning...

I think Democrats just liked Obama better. It was an election between a geeky black man and unemotional woman. Bizare.

So now a skit on SNL is going to determine the election? That's as crazy as saying God willed an election. Either idea is A Divine Comedy. If the voters choose McCain/Palin, they deserve what happens to them. As for me, I'll be looking for some place like Iraq or Northern Ireland where the death struggle between religious nutcases is winding down.

Also, I am no fan of Alito or Roberts, but no one can honestly say they're not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. The solution is to work your ass off for candidates who will nominate judges you agree with instead of wasting energy playing the victim game of sexism or racism.

Kris Broughton,

Your humanity shines. I love that your goal is to truly understand without judgment what motivates those who act differently than you. This is the place I seek to be. It's a difficult point to express without sounding wishy washy or blandly moderate. But yes, it's just so important not to merely give lip service to principles of liberalism--including compassion, tolerance for diversity, radical acceptance of others--but rather to actually engage in them.

Your post is extremely important. Please, everyone, read it again and really get it. And, Kris, you should make it the subject of its own post. (And let me know if you do).

Yesterday's news. Palin just became irrelevant with today's financial panic on Wall Street and the repercussions to come. McCain is starting to remind people of Herbert Hoover with his dumb "The economy is fundamentally sound" arguments. McCain spokesperson was demolished today when she tried to spin the economic message of Republicans. Chris Matthews asked her why they are trying to sound like they are Democrats. This race is over folks.

@DakiniDancer--good heavens! I never, ever meant for you to go to the Dr. Laura site. Please take the time to cleanse your mind in some healthy way this afternoon. Otherwise, that woman will taint you with her uckiness.

And if you feel strongly you should take your vote elsewhere, then you should do that. Absolutely. Right on and all that. Sorry if I got strident there.

I think it was reading the name Paglia. She often makes me very, very angry.

And oh, I hope the economic mess is bringing people to their senses.

However .... I really am not looking forward to the financial mess to come. I wonder if haggismold and his wife would adopt me when they're applying for passports. ;)

I think the narrative of Hillary's Sexist Treatment has now become writ so large it will never be undone. It is practically organic, fully fleshed, a life of its own. For the record, I think much of what was attributed to sexism in the primary was not, in fact, sexism. Living through the surreal world of salon letter writers, I'm aware of each accusation, and I simply did not agree with many of them. I saw some, to be sure, mainly committed by the media, and there were other examples that were simply inscrutable b/c they required the reading of someone's heart or mind. (Same for racism on that point, of course).

As for the explanation of the movement of 11% white women out of Obama's camp into "Palin's" camp: It's at least as reasonable to attribute it to perception of sexism b/c of the now granted status of that ism's role in the primary as it is to sexism itself.

It's all speculation of course. And there are many working mothers--of all political stripes--who may just like the idea of a working mother in office to justify their own choices. People do that all the time. They want to see official validation of whatever they are doing.

I think that the comedian who played Sarah Palin expressed her in a way that might be considered sexist by some. Apparently I have a different bar than many other women on that score, but I can imagine that some Hillary supporters, in a different political universe, might see that "dumb blonde" portrayal as sexist. But it's not really seen that way now b/c she's a conservative I guess. I dunno. It all gets confusing to me after a while. I think most of us choose a candidate using our limbic system and then "pick" the reasons to rationalize our choice after the fact. It sucks for all the polling and pundit profiteers, and it certainly makes those rare independents undeservedly valuable.

For the record, LT, it occurred to me immediately upon seeing this skit that it would, as you say, "rip the scab off the old wound." I recognized what you recognized, even though I wasn't an original Hillary supporter. I just feel like I know them well enough by now.

I also really like your distinction between equity and equality. Women need lots more choices to make family and jobs work. To make sequencing work, so if they stay at home for some critical years, their careers aren't over. Or to get paid or leave for taking care of elderly parents or whatever. I know there are some laws now, but, really, it's nowhere near enough. And the whole of society pays the price.

Odetteroulette: I'm taking deep breaths, and I am going to do a
Nitrya Yoga Dance (via dvd) to help deal with my viewing of Dr
Laura...I really need to do that anyway.
I agree with you re Paglia.......you can't imagine my distress
when I agreed with her.

Bob Zimmerman: respectfully, you may be counting your
chickens.......

Lainey, no offense, honestly, but it cannot be 'a narrative' (i.e. a made-up story) if you actually experienced it. Every time someone said or did some damned nasty sexist bs thing during that primary, it was really, really painful to deal with and made exchanges with other people a really terrible experience. But my least favorite part is the claim that it didn't happen. I find that the worst part. It was hurtful and I personally felt terribly betrayed, and I didn't even vote for Clinton during the primaries. Is it possible to acknowledge that it happened, please?

Because"the narrative" I saw as the one pushed at me over and over again--was the one that kept saying "Sexism? What Sexism?" while it was actually in motion. I know you may not mean it this way, but it's kind of insulting to hear it's all in our heads and I'm 'influenced'/duped by some outward force.

Can you see what I'm saying?

LT,
Maybe some of the ladies that supported Hillary out there got ruffled by the sketch, and may be considering jumping ship but, (and I hope I am not getting too far off topic here), in light of the Wall Street meltdown, I don't think a TV satire is going to sway the female voters: The prospect of being ruined financially is a much more powerful motivational influence, if you ask me. The events of yesterday, today and the subsequent 500 point Dow drop is a major issue, and the dominos aren't through falling yet. AIG is next on the block, and who knows who else. The plight of our economy is going to be the focal point of the election issues, and the SNL skit will be long forgotten by November.

I don't often start up my comments this way, but... oh, for God's sake.

It's satire, folks.

Seriously. Satire. As socially relevant as it may be, I would posit that anyone whose vote is the least bit affected by the SNL opening skit is as vague as the wind in their opinions. I would also put forth that their understanding of the issues, the platforms, the candidates, and the process is severely lacking. I would be tempted to say to them, "You know, that's not actually Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton on the screen. They're just actors.

Besides, I thought the comedic sketch was pretty even-handed. It made Clinton look extremely ambitious (which she is) and Palin look vastly underqualified (which she is). But the most defining moment was Amy Poehler's interruptive "anything," near the beginning of the sketch. Palin is the anti-Hillary. That's what needs saying, and I think that's what the sketch said.

And if those 11% of defecting white women can't get that, they may very well need two men telling them how to vote. Let's pander.

Hi Odderroulette,

First of all, thanks for the respectful response given your strong disagreement. I try to be so clear in my thinking and writing on this (for obvious reasons), and sometimes it boils down to seeing a different reality. I struggled with the word "narrative," knowing it wasn't quite right, but I thought it better than the word "notion" or any alternative.

I don't say (or think) that sexism didn't happen during the primary. I think it happens all the time, as a matter of fact, along with lots of other isms. I think I'm pretty clear on the fact that some blatant, public sexism occurred specifically to HRC. My point was to say that the larger narrative (forgive me. And know that my definition for that word isn't "made up story" but, for the sake of our purposes, "theme" or something) of sexism in the primary is exaggerated.

Please don't overlook the part where I suggest that one would need to know the heart or mind of the candidate or perpetrator in question to understand whether sexism existed. Case in point, the time Obama looked past Clinton at the State of the Union address, or some of the stuff that Bill Clinton said that some considered racist. It's simply inscrutable, and it seems to me that people project their own--what? I don't know, experience, maybe?--onto those situations and see a different reality than each other.

What I'm saying is precisely NOT insulting or that you're influenced by some outward force but that people--both of us, for example--see an ambiguous situation about which neither can possibly know the "Truth" and believe different things about it.

I'm not sure if I've really satisfied you here. And I certainly don't think it's useful to relive the primary. But neither do I accept that my opinion on this doesn't count, or that I should refrain from commenting on what appears to be an entrenched and inaccurate description of a period I lived through. I'm OK with the idea that we, and everybody really, see different realities.

I understand the frustration of women in this country. I AM a woman in this country. What I don't understand is why any woman would vote for McCain/Palin. Of course the Democratic Party hasn't done much for women lately. Like the Republican Party, it's run by men who have absolutely no interest in true equality for women. But why would any woman vote Republican? Out of spite? How stupid do you have to be to vote against your best interests because you're mad. Hilary would have made a great President, but guess what - she didn't make the cut. Would you rather go down in flames than suck it up and vote Democrat? Because a McCain/Palin administration will ensure that rich white guys will diminish your rights so fast it will make your head spin. At least Biden has done something for women - think Violence Against Women Act. If you want to further the rights of women, voting Republican ain't gonna do it.

Lainey, a lovely response back from you. Thank you. It's true I'm unsatisfied with many things that happened during the primary, but none of them are really unsatisfactory in your answer. The candidates ... I didn't really feel the sexism or racism coming from either of them specifically. I did see quite a bit of sexist behavior among local Obama staff members I knew, among the media in general (who are still committing those sins, actually) and by the DNC which was the most stinging behavior. Plus, the general vocabulary and behavior from some individuals on the Internet was really inexcusable. "Clitnon?" "Billary?" Just ... not good. It doesn't help that there is still an extremely patronizing force in the air sort wafting around in regards to those who felt betrayed and have decided to take their votes elsewhere. I too am horrified that someone who truly believes in women's issues (and I sort of hate that label because they are really human issues but anyway ...) I'm sort of horrified that someone claiming that would vote for neocon-entrenched McCain and the slimy Palin. However, I understand the feeling of betrayal. It's made me re-think my own status as a Democrat. I mean, I'm voting for Obama, but after that, I don't know. I think they've lost my support for future events.

And it's true that a narrative doesn't have to be something untrue or even that you might have meant that it was. We do all impose our own values on others. We probably can't help it to a certain extent. But, I don't think the sexism charges were exaggerated. I think the shouting was precisely because much of it went unacknowledged and completely ignored. That might account for some of the bitter feelings and a feeling of not being represented or heard among some people.

Anyway, thank you for your words. It's nice to have a discussion and not a ranting match, I have to say. :)

Well, odetteroulette, your response was lovelier yet! (Back in my day, we would call ourselves the mutual admiration society.)

Great post LT. On the Bill Mahrer show last Friday, there was a conservative reporter from the Wall Street Journal. Anytime any of the panel members said anything legitimately critical of Sarah Palin, he was like a tape recorder that kept saying, "Bring it on. Bring it on. And you will lose the election." He has a point. One thing that the Democrats can do is focus on McCain, not Palin. The perceived personal attacks on her is not helpful.

Tina Fey is the bomb.

Do you think Hillary Clinton was treated worse than the press that Bill Cinton? Was how Bill Cinton was treated sexist? Is it possible to treat a man sexist? Is it possible people voted for Obama because they trust him more as a person, and if she had beaten him in the primary would it be because democratic voters were racist? Finally, does it make any sense to vote for a party diametrically opposed to issues women care about out of spite?

I think that 11% shift says more about the superficial quality of these women than their commitment to ideals and issues. I think it is even more telling that 25% of white males shifted to McCain after Caribou Barbie was announced as a running mate. Is it sexist because no one mentions that?

I thought the skit was just plain funny. Tina Fey is brilliant.

You're right that he needs to start pandering big time to women.He should ,furthermore, give broad hints that his appointments will be historic ones. How about a woman as Secretary of Defense???

no cake