Margery Eagan: Women who voted for Clinton are insecure sheep with tawdry fantasies

You're busy, so let me sum up Margery Eagan's column today, just in case you don't have the time to read it all:

I'm a woman. I don't like Hillary Clinton. Therefore, women who voted for her wish they could be married to Bill Clinton, and that disgusts me.



    Free tagging: 


    ah yes, of course, I knew

    By on

    ah yes, of course, I knew there was some underlying reason I voted for her. It definitely had nothing to do with her healthcare or economic plans. (whomever is elected is going to end the war, but I want to know that the next president will do that and fix the economy and healthcare) It was all because I wanted some former presidential tail. mmmmhhhmmmm

    So sure? She can't find

    By on

    So sure?

    She can't find the courage to say that her vote for the war was a mistake. She also tried reasoning away that she had no idea Bush would use force... Please...

    Thats not leadership, and it lends to questioning her ability to do just that.

    You are uninformed

    By on

    whomever is elected is going to end the war, but I want to know that the next president will do that and fix the economy and healthcare

    McCain has made it a mandate to continue the aggression in Iraq if elected. He said he'd have gone in like Bush did even without any WMD pretenses.

    Also, the president has little influence on our economy. "We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion."

    Oh, I get it

    So the vanishing deficit under WJ Clinton's regime, with much help from Al Gore, was just as much an anomalie as the explosion of war pork has been under the Bush administration.



    By on

    The debt is tomorrow's economy... going down the drain.

    The Republican Party motto should be:
    "Woo-hoo! Party on the national credit card, and fuck the grandchildren!!!"

    It's not feminist to vote

    By on

    It's not feminist to vote for someone just because they have a vajayjay, and let's face it, for the majority of women, there's only one issue; shes a woman too.

    It reeks of "lets vote for the guy we can sit down and have a beer with" attitude, and I fear they're letting gender play a huge part in who they vote for without looking at the bigger picture.

    The nice thing about Obama is that he has been denouncing race as a reason why people should vote for him, while Hillary struts her gender front stage. It's shameless.

    Majority of women?

    By on

    How do you know that?

    I know why my wife voted for her and it has nothing to do with her gender and everything to do with how she thinks Clinton simply has a lot more experience for the job than Obama. Granted, that's a survey of one, but I'm betting it's as scientific a sample as yours.

    I love media talking points,

    By on

    I love media talking points, it seems you do too.

    First wife in a Arkansas and to the presidency is more experience? Please explain!

    I'll show this to my wife

    By on

    And if she wants to explain, she can (I didn't vote for Clinton, although I think she'd make a good candidate). My point was to refute the claim that most women vote with their ovaries with a specific incidence, as opposed to simply stating what nonsense I think that is.

    Well, yes.

    By on

    For starters, she has 7 full years in the Senate, more than twice Obama's time in the body. So you'll have to explain why that's meaningless.

    But while I feel her experience advantage is overstated, the reality is that political wives have always been important political figures in their own right and Hillary always showed an eagerness to take on those responsibilities. The notion of the first spouse as being the Homemaker-in-Chief lost all relevance during Hillary's time in office and the nation knew it. Its why she was elected to the Senate AS First Lady. Her political experience is all the more extensive when compared to Obama.


    By on

    In addition to Obama's 3+ years in the Senate, he also spent 7 years in the Illinois legislature. That adds up to almost 11 years of elective experience, versus almost 8 for H. Clinton.

    If one wishes to enter into an argument in favor of valuing Hillary's time as First Lady as political experience, then one must consider that the basic arc of this experience was: overreaching, alienation, utter failure, withdrawal.

    I'm sure important lessons were learned that have helped her in her largely successful Senate career. But if you want to compare 8 years of controversial and widely reviled First Lady with 7 years of successful and widely beloved State Senator, I think the latter wins.

    That adds up to almost 11

    By on

    That adds up to almost 11 years of elective experience, versus almost 8 for H. Clinton.


    Also, you need to look at his record, and what he was ale to draw up, and to pass. Also look at his voting record.

    It's a much better record then Clintons, and you get the feeling that it wasn't simply to set him up to get to the nomination point. You know, he really wanted to help people, istead of helping being a by product of your own ambition to reach the whitehouse again.

    Why is Obama Inexperienced while WJ Clinton was Ready?

    If elected, Obama will be just about exactly a year older than Clinton was when he took the oath of office.

    WJ Clinton had been a governor for ten years, attorney general for two.

    Obama was a state senator for seven years, US senator for the past 4 years, and a constitutional law lecturer for 11 years (1993 to 2004).

    Oh, youth and experience were different when the baby boomers didn't inhale them ...

    MA Exit poll data on Gender Causality

    By on

    Source: CNN

    Was Gender of Candidate Important to You?

    Yes (20%) (76% of which voted Clinton, 19% voted Obama)
    No (79%) (51% of which voted Clinton, 47% voted Obama)

    So, for 1 of every 5 people, gender was a large part of why they voted for a candidate and 3/4 of those people wanted a woman President. 1 of 7 people were honest enough in exit polling to want Hillary in large part because she's a woman.

    Obama is fighting uphill on two accounts though:

    Was Race of Candidate Important to You?

    Yes (16%) (51% Clinton, 44% Obama)
    No (84%) (57% Clinton, 41% Obama)

    So, in MA, 8% of the vote went to Clinton purely because the voter refused to vote for a black guy. Nice. Also, more people voted for Hillary because she's not black than voted for Obama because he is.

    Finally, white women voted 2-to-1 for Hillary than Barack. I doubt they were as honest about their conscious/subconscious choice in the exit polling than those numbers make it seem. Either that or you're claiming that white women judged some other better reason between these two candidates and therefore see Hillary as the better candidate than white men (1:1 Clinton:Obama). I'd love to hear the better reason that only women can see and not men...

    and while that 20% can't be

    By on

    and while that 20% can't be directly linked from the above, it is a funny coincidence that women out voted men in MA also by 20%, when turnout is usually around 50-50.

    I'm not trying to generalize, but ti looks like Hillary trumping gender has made a huge difference in the women vote. There's simply no other explanation.

    Adam, I'm sure your wife has many reasons why she picked her over Obama. But from exit polls, and from interviews, it seems many women are picking her for gender 1st.

    I can she why many feel the pull to vote on that issue alone, but I think everyones missing the bigger picture when they allow one issue to cloud their reasoning.

    Most women I know did not vote for Clinton

    By on

    despite the fact that they love the idea of a woman for president. when it came down to making a decision, they went with who they felt was the best candidate.

    The few I know who did vote for Clinton said they agreed with her policies more than the other candidates. Fair enough.

    And a few women I know said they voted for someone other than Clinton because of Bill and the fact that she "makes women look bad". So her gender/connection to her husband has hurt her as well.

    GF and I voted for Obama

    By on

    And I'm an alumna of Hillary's school. Myself, I just can't get past the whole Iraq thing. Using nothing but the NY Times, a stick of chewing gum and my own common sense, I was able to determine that we had no business getting into that war. And that we had ulterior motives for getting into that war. And that there was a giant redirect in progress. And sitting there watching that specious case be made, one nation-building block at a time--in the name of 9-11, still fresh to me and stinging--watching all of Congress cave, unable or unwilling to put two and two together--the whole thing seemed inexorable, as though it was happening in slow motion, and there was nothing I could do about it. So, I guess this was my big chance to vote Hillary out. I never, ever cared who her husband slept with, and of course I would like to see a female POTUS, much as, since I am not just looking for my own white female team to advance, I would also like to see an African-American POTUS, and all things being fairly equal, you vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq, you lose my vote. Just one man's opinion.

    Simple Math Problem

    By on

    So... we've got one woman and one African-American

    The majority of women > the majority of African-Americans. Heck, the majority of women > the majority of men.

    It wouldn't make any damn sense for Obama to tell people they should vote for him because of his race, or his gender.

    I like Obama as much as the next fellow, but don't make a virtue out of a simple math problem. The black vote isn't electing anybody. The female vote might. I can't blame Clinton for trying (I'll blame her for other things, like voting for the war...)


    By on

    Saying that people only vote for Hillary because she's a woman is as tired, obnoxious, and destructive as people who say that Obama supporters only vote for him because he's black. Both are efforts at reinforcing cultural discrimination by saying the ONLY reason a woman or a black person can succeed is because others give them breaks because of their gender or ethnicity. Its offensive and I'm disappointed to see any supporter of Hillary OR Obama resort to such garbage.

    I didn't vote for Hillary, but not because I didn't want to be married to Bill. I voted for Obama, but not out of white guilt. I like both of them. For me, the deciding factor was that Obama convinced me that he is most capable of inspiring the nation to achieve goals that I feel he and Hillary both support. But I get why Hillary inspires people, too. And guess what? If the deciding factor for some is that she's a woman, I'm fine with that. There is nothing anti-feminist about being inspired that a woman is running for president. When ultimately so little separates two candidates, things like become as valid as anything else. Likewise for Obama. Sure he's downplayed his race, but I don't see him turning away the black voters who are flocking to his campaign. Nor should he. Obama and Clinton are very similar on policy and substance. The historic nature of their campaigns is a reasonable way to differentiate them.

    I'd tend to agree, but the

    By on

    I'd tend to agree, but the exit polling just doesn't match up.

    Are we to assume the 20-30% gap between the male and female vote for the candidates is attributed to issues?

    I think playing the race or gender game at every chance is just reinforcing the discrimination you say you hate.

    Id's also have to point out the black vote didn't swing heavily toward Obama until the race baiting crap that went on in NH and leading up till SC. After that, the Clinton's are losing it 70-30, proof that it wasn't just a little tiff, and hit home to many African Americans. It was a calculated measure to pit white against black, and it's disgraceful.

    Gee, I'd say Margery has

    By on

    Gee, I'd say Margery has some issues she needs to get over. Clinton got my vote because she's smart, tough, competent, and has a whole lot of positions I believe in.

    I wonder if Margery assumes that men who voted for Clinton (and there were bunches of them) did so only because they want to get in her pantsuit?

    It's the sleaze factor

    I think Marjorie's issue with Clinton revolve
    around the Sleaze factor. The well-timed
    tears and the post-SC race-baiting (Bubba
    comparing Barack to Jesse Jackson) made her
    toxic for a lot of people of both genders.

    poster is unfair in sum-up of column

    By on

    That wasn't exactly a fair summing up of the article. The premise was that Hillary is where she is now not because of her own merits, but largely because of Bill. And I for one see the point of that argument.
    Here's a good quote that show what she was saying:
    "I had a mini-wow moment myself voting for Martha Coakley to be our first female attorney general. But then it was all about Martha, not about Martha’s husband. I wouldn’t know him if I fell over him."
    Does anyone think of Hillary without thinking of Bill?

    I'm not saying she doesn't have merit and capability, but as someone else pointed out, she's very calculating with shows of emotion, and even the decision to become NY senator was a calculated step to become president. What connection did she even have with NY, except as a stepping stone to the presidency?

    Hillary also reinforces the concept of women only getting to high places in association with Men. And it doesn't have to be that way.

    Yeah, Bill

    Do you ever wonder who was bringing in the income all those years that Bill Clinton was serving the public?

    Both of them, They've been

    By on

    Both of them,

    They've been using their prestige for quite some time to amass a huge fortune based on lobbying and donations from friends and benefactors.

    Little known fact, Obama and his wifes net worth is a little under 1 million dollars, almost 15 of what Hillary pumped into her campaign from her own wallet last month.

    Hillary and Bills is in excess of 120 million.

    Wanna hear the really sick thing?

    By on

    She didn't *spend* her own money on her campaign...she *loaned* it to herself! If enough contributions were to come in that she could withdrawal that money back out, she will!

    Even Mitt wasn't that obnoxious...

    Could that be why she

    By on

    Could that be why she pleaded for a fundraiser today?

    We have a chance to elect a intelligent, caring, exciting new candidate that isn't part of the good ol'boys {and girls} club of wealth.

    Instead the same Dems that always bitch about the process, the candidates, and are stumped why we always lose, are choosing the Clintons. Probably the most decisive democrats of the last 20 years, and the ones who will hemorrhage independents and stir the beehive that is the GOP base.

    Not to mention they're very good friends with the Bush's. I don't want my next president to think kindly of the Bushes at all.


    By on

    Mitt did loan the funds to his campaign. I imagine that both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Romney loaned the money, rather than giving it, for some good reasons. I suspect that both of them will be able to deduct the funds from their taxes through some mechanism.

    Before Bill was POTUS

    Hillary brought down the cash in the family. He could not have lived the life that he did if it were not for her moneymaking abilities. Once he was president, their finances got much tighter because she had to bail out of multiple lucrative board positions for major corporations.

    You are correct about the post-presidency years, but incorrect about the pre-presidency years.

    speaking of which, she was

    By on

    speaking of which, she was on the board of wal-mart.

    Her record and experience don't match up with progressive values, unless it was of benefit to her political career.

    Do you read past soundbites?

    By on

    Was she aggressively pro-union in her role on the Wal-mart board? No. If she was, she wouldn't have been ON the Wal-mart board. But she did actually make progress in pulling Wal-Mart towards progressive positions. It was a pragmatic effort, not an idealistic one. She was able to improve Wal-mart's employment of women in management and to design ecologically friendly stores. Given that the store later got itself sued for discriminating against women, those were obviously needed fights, too. She picked her battles and made progress, though some of it collapsed after she left the board.

    I like idealists, but I like pragmatists, too. Both are ultimately needed to advance the things I believe in. I decided that at this time, we need an idealist to lead, but I don't think its awful that others prefer a more pragmatic leader with a record of working with Republican lawmakers. I am an Obama voter, and I would not be that disappointed if Hillary won. Frankly, the constant knee-biting that she endures tends to win support from me because most of the attacks against her are completely unfair.


    Ew! Gross. That's another reason why I DIDN'T vote for Monica Lewinsky's ex boyfriend's wife; he might strike again if he gets near the oval office again and I just really can't take the chance that it could be me.

    rumors are just rumors, but

    By on

    rumors are just rumors, but some have said bills had a few indiscretions since then that have been documented and are in the closet waiting to be thrown out there once Hillary wins the nomination.

    I think we're walking into a trap because she just can't pull the same votes that Obama can. Just look at the states he won, and by the majorities [and turnout] he won them on the 5th.

    But if the rumors are true, the Dems will be driving a right over the cliff in nominating Hillary.

    More Exit Poll Summaries

    By on

    I'm too lazy to go get the exact numbers right now, but one of the questions regarded who you would be satisfied with if they won.

    Basically, people who voted for Clinton said they'd be satisfied if Obama won the nomination. People who voted for Obama said they would not be satisfied if Clinton won the nomination.

    So, not only did Obama win big in the states he won and pull serious support in nominally "Red States", but anywhere Hillary won could have just as easily gone to Obama since nearly every state had many Clinton voters that have no issues with Obama. The opposite is not true and there is a significant "I'd vote for McCain over Hillary" undercurrent in the Democratic Party. I've heard few to nobody saying "I'd vote for McCain before I ever vote for Obama" from the Hillary camp.

    On the other hand

    By on

    The Republican Party also has a contingent saying "I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for McCain," in addition to a larger contingent saying "If McCain is the candidate, I'll just stay home."

    right now it's "I'd

    By on

    right now it's "I'd vote/fundraise for Hillary so that we can win in NOV by beating her easily"

    I think thats due to the

    By on

    I think thats due to the scortched earth campaign they unleashed around NH.

    It pissed alot of Dems off, especially when Obama was running a good clean campaign, then we see someone in our own party come out and start playing dirty.

    Obama can punch back just as hard, but he knows doing so in the primary is just fuel for the GOP, and will hurth the Dem that wins the nomination. Clinton didn't care, she got desperate.

    Look here! An Obama voter who'd be reasonably happy with Clinton

    I'm one, and there are surely millions more of us. I didn't decide to vote for Obama until after John Edwards' withdrawal and the Thursday night debate. I thought Obama performed slightly better in the debate (especially on Iraq) and that's what finally pushed me off the fence. If Hillary turns out to be the nominee, I'll still happilly support her in November.