In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

What she said

zuzu

I had plans for writing a long post on why withholding your vote in November is a perfectly rational, defensible and principled stance if you’re offended by racist dogwhistles coming out of the Clinton camp or sexist dogwhistles coming from Obama. Why? Because it’s not the voter’s job to just suck it up and vote for someone who hasn’t worked for your vote; it’s the candidate’s job to make sure that he or she doesn’t turn off voters. And all the bullying about handing the election to McCain and losing Roe v. Wade isn’t going to change that one simple fact.

But then I saw that Portly Dyke has pretty much said everything I wanted to say, and said it better. So go read her post.

139 thoughts on What she said

  3. Sure, if our candidates are not perfect, and act like politicians, it is best not to vote for them.

    By girlcotting the process, we effectively can step outside and continue to complain about how we are marginalized and ghettoized. We can demand protection, proclaim our victimization, and can get busy organizing useful days (like V-Day!) instead of doing all that hard work like legislating or lobbying or lawyering or even doctoring or engineering.

    Just say no thank you to politics, and just say no thank you to compromises, and just say no thank you to working alongside people we have any disagreement whatsoever with!

    Woohoo, let’s say it girls, our poo don’t smell!

  6. Well said.

    The Democrats know full well that they run the risk of alienating progressives by saying calculatedly offensive shit. They’re just hoping the trade-off is worth it. In which case, they’ve already accepted the loss of our votes in favor of “the center” or whatever other constituency they’re courting. They don’t need us.

    Wonder if they’re right.

  7. I think wtf is making an ass out of themself, but at the same time, s/he has some semblance of a point. The election this November is critical, and if we don’t have people with the right ideas getting involved and exercising their right to political determination, then we open up the potential for something even worse. And even more so, we have less of a position to be frustrated and infuriated if the Republicans manage to maintain their reign of terror over this country. It’s not about threats or about bullying, it’s about doing what we can to help push the system in our direction until we can change it.

    I think because of the rhetoric of change and because this is the first election where traditionally marginalized groups in America have a real chance at reclaiming power that we are particularly dissapointed by the nonesense coming from Clinton and Obama. They both claimed to be above this style of politics and have pulled each other down into a shameful waste of their talents (which in and of itself makes me question whether or not a fair fight in the presidential election is even possible).

    But that’s besides the point. I disagree that we should withhold our vote until we find the perfect candidate. We are embroiled in a bitterly campaigned two party system for better or worse, and our candidates are never perfect or even close, no matter how much we want them to be. Despite that, we have an obligation to file our opinion for the future of the leadership of our country, especially in November. I think if you were making this claim as to abstaining from the primary, that would be a completely different story. But not voting for Clinton or Obama (at this point, probably Obama) against McCain because of some stupid bullshit they pulled against eachother in February isn’t hurting, or even making a statement against anyone but ourselves.

  8. ive read the posts that reference dogwhistles here and I have a question. Couldn’t you go back over all the speeches and interviews the candidates have given in the last year and find an example of any type of dogwhistle you like and then use it to support your larger point or argument?

    I understand the significance of them but isn’t it also, except for very “clear” examples, a very subjective thing? Sorry, not trying to derail the thread but this has been on my mind for a few days now.

  9. And withholding your vote proves what? That you are about 5 years old and will take your toys and go home instead of sharing and playing with others? I had a group of first graders Thursday and Friday and I got really tired of telling them ‘you don’t always get what you want and it’s not the end of the world’ and ‘ the balls are a priviledge you will loose if you can’t share with others’. Nice to know some things never change. *snark*

    I rarely agree totally with politcians, heck I rarely agree totally with other people. That’s just part of life and instead of pouting in the corner, I at least try to work with them and come up with a compromise we both hate but we can both live with.

    Not voting means I don’t have any say, which is worse than having to deal with some silly politically motivated zingers and centrist crap.

  10. I just think they have an expression “to cut one’s nose off to spite one’s face” for a reason. There is some hypothetical line where given, in reality, two choices, there is no third choice of “neither”- you are going to get one or the other. Which situation is more tolerable? You will not be transported to a magical space base in another dimension if you choose neither, you will instead live with one option or another.

  11. I keep hearing how magical Obama is, and how he’s going to grind McCain into the ground.

    What’s a few votes from a few disgruntled feminists then?

  12. I mean, if he’s decided that the feminist vote is not the vote he wants, because he’s more than happy to denigrate women in general in order to beat his opponent, then if he loses, he loses because he couldn’t get enough of his preferred type of voter to turn out for him. Not because the voters he didn’t want in the first place took the hint.

    Right?

  13. I would add that if one intends to withhold their vote, it would be best to vote third party rather than to simply not vote because the latter is too easily glossed as apathy (even if that is an unfair perception).

  14. So, what, feminists aren’t actually supposed to give a shit about our rights? If we can’t have a non-sexist president, to hell with Roe v. Wade, we weren’t really using it anyway? There is nothing feminist about throwing away other women’s lives to teach Obama a lesson.

    I wanted Clinton to win more than anything, and I don’t respect Obama very much, and I don’t have particularly high hopes for his presidency; he’s okay, not great. So fucking what.

    In the general election, you do not vote for somebody because they are a good and decent person whom you would be proud to call your friend. You vote for them because they are the very best of the choices available to you, and because people’s lives, including women’s lives, are at stake. Jesus fucking Christ.

  15. Again, why is it the duty of feminists to just fall in line and eat shit because “this year, it’s really important”? It’s always important, and it’s never time to not eat shit.

    Isn’t it the candidate’s job to get enough votes to win? Don’t we just prolong this whole “Here, have a shit sandwich and wait for us to decide it’s time to address your issues” problem by voting for candidates who don’t take the trouble to listen when the regular constituencies are dissatisfied?

    It’s not like this hasn’t been going on for at least 36 years, since NOW got fucked over during the ’72 convention.

    Maybe it’s time for a candidate who pays attention to voter unrest. Ever think of that?

    Besides, if there’s really no sexism problem, if it’s all subjective and we’re just being hypersensitive and seeing things that aren’t really there, is the Obama Steamroller really going to miss the odd vote from a feminist here and there?

    Oh? You’re trying to say that every vote counts? Well, how about pressuring the candidate to appeal to every voter rather than just assume that some voters will turn out no matter how much he throws them under the bus?

  16. Exactly how many elections are we supposed to suck it up and vote for candidates who are willing to throw us under the bus because they are “the very best of the choices available to you”? Cause it seems like we’ve been sucking it up for a long ass time. I just want someone to tell me how long is long enough, cause my family have been yellow dog democrats since forever and if not now, when should I expect to get to vote for someone who will vocally support my interests?

  17. I don’t buy it. I agree that the Democratic candidates are acting shamefully, but I’m not sure how a McCain administration will make things better for marginalized groups. If, come November, you’re in a state in which a Democratic victory is assured, then fine, whatever. But if you’re in a position to hep decide whether a Democrat or a Republican gets the White House, I really, really cannot see what good you think you’re doing by abstaining.

    But I guess pointing out that McCain actually does have a shot at the White House makes me a bully.

  18. But I guess pointing out that McCain actually does have a shot at the White House makes me a bully.

    No, but trying to pressure people into voting for Obama even if they feel personally slighted by him and feel he hasn’t done enough to get their vote (even as he goes for the white male moderate vote by personally slighting other voters he assumes will vote for him anyway) is, in fact, making you a bully.

    Once again: it’s the candidate’s job to earn the votes, not the voter’s job to get into line and vote for someone who hasn’t earned their votes.

    I seem to recall a lot of huffing about one or the other candidate seeming to feel *entitled* to the nomination, and that being a bad thing. How does it cease being a bad thing when it’s the general election?

  19. Zuzu:

    While I do not doubt that what you’re saying is true I can say that I don’t feel as if I’m really getting to choose someone I like, as opposed to someone I don’t like. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have done things I don’t like in this campaign. I’m not sure I would like either one well enough to vote for them in a primary (it’s a moot point, I’m unenrolled so I can’t vote in my state’s primaries) but there isn’t anything short of incapacitation that will keep me from voting for a democrat this coming November.

    I don’t really expect any dem to be a decent. upright and honorable person (they’re all politicians); but I fully expect any GOPrick to simply continue the policies of Bushco–that I cannot be party to.

  20. Again, why is it the duty of feminists to just fall in line and eat shit</i.

    Eat shit, retain our civil liberties, same difference?

    Besides, if there’s really no sexism problem, if it’s all subjective and we’re just being hypersensitive and seeing things that aren’t really there,

    What in the holy hell are you talking about? These are feminists arguing with you. Feminists who do not agree that because Obama is sexist, therefore more Iraqi women should die. Who do not agree that because Obama is sexist, therefore I–that’s me personally, Zuzu–should lose the right to control my body if I get pregnant. “No sexism problem”? What. The. Fuck.

  21. I seem to recall a lot of huffing about one or the other candidate seeming to feel *entitled* to the nomination, and that being a bad thing. How does it cease being a bad thing when it’s the general election?

    Because we’re all rational enough to understand that electing a politician isn’t about rewards or punishments or lessons for them. It’s for us. My life and your life are more important than making sure Barack Obama Learns and Grows.

  22. This is the internets, there would be nothing to do if people didn’t argue about stuff. What are you doing right now? Arguing about how some choads can’t make you do something. The opposing view would be, well, that doesn’t seem like a good idea for X and Y reasons. Then the easy response is “look, because you are arguing with me, you are the same choad I was talking about in the first place.” You’ve created a no win situation, similarly to how you feel that some faction of feminists must be in if they have to “hold their noses.” My argument is a little different. It is more about “define what you mean by ‘holding your nose.'” If you think Alito II and III are worth it, that’s great.

    The things that are happening that are not likable in this campaign appear to be so because we’re soaking in the f***ing thing. Get away from the computer and you don’t have to worry about argument from blog commenter type arguments. Obama or Hillary or Bill say some things that might be questionable, but the real reaction comes from someone getting attacked for saying they thought it could be questionable and then the arguments spiral from there. People get more and more mad because they don’t like the way their blog buddy got treated by some random idiots or some inflamed partisans and then all of a sudden everything goes to shit.

  23. What in the holy hell are you talking about? These are feminists arguing with you.

    I was not aware that all feminists were in lockstep, particularly on this issue.

    Feminists who do not agree that because Obama is sexist, therefore more Iraqi women should die. Who do not agree that because Obama is sexist, therefore I–that’s me personally, Zuzu–should lose the right to control my body if I get pregnant. “No sexism problem”? What. The. Fuck.

    I’m confused: I keep hearing on one hand that Obama has a solid lock on the nomination and then the presidency, and on the other, I hear that a few disgruntled feminists (in solid-blue states) will be the ones who throw the nomination to St. John McCain and therefore throw away our civil rights.

    Which is it?

  24. My argument is a little different. It is more about “define what you mean by ‘holding your nose.’” If you think Alito II and III are worth it, that’s great.

    I’d have been happier had Obama, who had some power to actually do something, done a little more to block Alito I. But what do I know?

    My golly, Portly Dyke’s “frantic” description really fits, doesn’t it? I do a post about how not voting in November for a candidate who’s signaled he or she is willing to toss you and people like you under the bus is rational, defensible and principled, and suddenly, there’s a lot of frantic fluttering about how I’m going to ensure, personally, with my one vote, the country’s destruction.

    You know how I spent the 2004 election? I was in New Hampshire, volunteering for the Kerry campaign. I went up there to be an attorney pollwatcher, but wound up spending most of the day manning the voter hotline. I got I don’t even know how many calls from people who’d gotten Republican misinformation about who was eligible to vote, and what kind of proof of eligibility was required. I was probably personally responsible for getting 30 people other than myself out to vote, people who didn’t think they could vote. Not only that, at the end of the day, I personally traveled to a Republican district at the call of our pollwatcher to prevent the polls from being held open late in violation of state law (and to the advantage of the state Republicans).

    It’s very likely I’m going to do something similar this year.

    All of you who are criticizing me — what the hell did you do four years ago? What do you plan on doing this year?

  25. There is some hypothetical line where given, in reality, two choices, there is no third choice of “neither”- you are going to get one or the other

    Quoted For Truth.

    If you are choosing between two options: (A) vote for the Democratic nominee, or (B) don’t vote at all, the end result is simple. (A) increases the likelihood of the Democratic nominee winning the election. (B) increases the likelihood of the Republican nominee winning the election. It’s really that simple.

    To assert that it is a worthwhile venture to choose option (B) is to assert that the differences between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee are less important than the activity the Democratic nominee engaged in that you find objectionable. In the present case, I find it hard to believe that either Obama’s or Clinton’s behavior rises to that level. The country will be in far worse shape if the Republicans keep the White House, and anyone who doesn’t vote because of “nasty campaigning” or similar silliness bears a small, but not insignificant, portion of the blame for that happening.

    It looks pretty likely at this point that Obama will be the nominee. Despite his “I’m a Christian, and therefore I’m better than most liberals” avenue of campaigning, I intend to support him, because the country will be *vastly* better off with Obama in the White House than McCain, Huckabee, or any other member of the Republican party. I’ll go one step further: I think anyone who doesn’t see that is myopic.

  27. Could someone please quickly list the sexist dogwhistles coming from the Obama campaign? I’m aware of the “periodically”/ “feeling down” comment, but any other than that?

    Thanks.

  28. Zuzu, maybe you need one of those “wankity wank” macros Liss uses sometimes when she whips out the trollspray.

    Oh, that’s no macro. Liss has to do that by hand in Haloscan comment editing.

    It has come down to “well, this candidate won’t screw you over as badly as this one will.” AND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A PERSUASIVE ARGUMENT?! Oy.

  29. Because we’re all rational enough to understand that electing a politician isn’t about rewards or punishments or lessons for them. It’s for us. My life and your life are more important than making sure Barack Obama Learns and Grows.

    Wait, so is Zuzu incredibly selfish or utterly without self-interest?

    Adverse consequences for ignoring constituents only offer opportunities for personal candidate growth? You mentioned dead Iraqis up there somewhere–do you think the new principled Democratic leadership stance against the war has much to do with Democrat constituent clannishness?

    Say I decide to switch from Obama to Hillary because Hillary said she’d work to pass ENDA–not splENDA, either. Would that not be a political calculation, designed to elicit particular behavior from politicians that would have consequences for us?

    I’m with Zuzu. McCain is certainly the greater evil, but shame on the candidates for allowing progressives to remain so disgusted with the political process.

  30. Has everyone forgotten the Electoral College?

    No. I come from a very red state, and I didn’t vote in 2004. It wasn’t a principled stance. It was a combination of being busy and lazy. I thought I was registered until I found out too late that I wasn’t. Anyway, I still feel guilty about not voting precisely because of the electoral college. Not because my vote would have swayed my state by any stretch, but because my vote could have maybe helped to show that the electoral college no longer consistently reflects the popular vote.

    Even if a democrat wins the general election, by what margin will it be? It seems like the best way to effect change is to show that the current system is inaccurate. I’ve known plenty of people who use the electoral college as a reason not to vote (I’ve felt that way too), but maybe a popular vote could change that feeling of futility and thus change politicians reliance on specific demographics. The 2000 election showed how important the difference between the popular vote and the electoral college could be. I don’t want to be another non-vote that supports the acceptability of the electoral college.

    That said, I do see both sides of this. It’s hard. I want a more progressive candidate, but I also want things to not get worse. I’m having a hard enough time getting by as it is. I will hold my nose.

  31. To assert that it is a worthwhile venture to choose option (B) is to assert that the differences between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee are less important than the activity the Democratic nominee engaged in that you find objectionable. In the present case, I find it hard to believe that either Obama’s or Clinton’s behavior rises to that level. The country will be in far worse shape if the Republicans keep the White House, and anyone who doesn’t vote because of “nasty campaigning” or similar silliness bears a small, but not insignificant, portion of the blame for that happening.

    This is not just about some objectionable statements, whatever clues they might contain. It’s about setting up a standard of “some qualitative difference from the Republican candidate.” That doesn’t only allow the Democratic leadership to straight-facedly float any candidate left of Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee. It also lowers the bar for the GOP leadership, because their base gets refined down to “people who would not vote for anyone left of Rudy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee.”

    I don’t believe that McCain is either moderate or principled, but it’s worth noting that the GOP is paying and will continue to pay for alienating a large portion of loyal voters through short-sighted pandering to evil. Progressives can’t pretend that they’ll be pushed across the aisle, unfortunately, but the Democratic leadership can’t point to much good out of the “suck it up” alternative strategy.

  32. I’m normally a lurker so I feel bad that one of my few comments has to be a drive by, but I need to get some sleep.

    I also think the sleep deprivation leaves some holes open in my thoughts upon rereading, but so be it. I’m not sure if change is best brought on by voting or not voting, but I’m erring on the side of voting until/unless there is a political revolution.

  33. “he’s more than happy to denigrate women in general”

    huh?

    I’m seeing a lot of hyperbolic assertion about Obama with zero evidence.

  34. Wait, so is Zuzu incredibly selfish or utterly without self-interest?

    Yes, you have read me accurately and correctly understood that I consider her position to be internally inconsistent and to make no sense.

  35. Well–I guess I’m in the minority here, but I’m an Obama supporter, and I believe he stands for feminist issues just as much as Sen. Clinton does.

    I think not voting at all–whether it’s Clinton or Obama–would be a huge mistake for women and minorities alike. The Republicans don’t care about women’s issues, and we see from Hurricane Katrina that they don’t give a damn about blacks.

  36. Zuzu, I think you raise a complex issue, but it’s not complex for you. You live in a state where the Democratic nominee will win by a large margin. If you don’t like him, then don’t vote for him. I think Cynthia McKinney will be on the NY ballot. Or write in someone you like better. Polling is good enough these days that voters know whether their vote could change a real total, or is more likely to be symbolic. Showing up is the crucial symbol. I’m pretty sure you’ll be there. Maybe you could clarify that staying home on Nov. 4 is not the right choice for most people?

  37. On a related note, SNL took Obamamaniac news media to task in the opening skit (with a couple of digs at HRC, too), and Tina Fey followed up on it in the Weekend Update with an awesome piece about the state of women. If you’re on the West Coast, or have a WC feed available, you can still catch it. I love the Fey.

  38. I think not voting at all–whether it’s Clinton or Obama–would be a huge mistake for women and minorities alike.

    Maybe you could clarify that staying home on Nov. 4 is not the right choice for most people?

    You don’t have to stay home, since there are downticket races which are probably very important to you.

    But why should anyone be quiet starting in February about the issues that are important to them, when months and months lie between now and November, and pressure on the eventual winner may extract apology, concessions or mere acknowledgement of issues?

    We’re not stuck, people? We don’t have to accept a lesser-of-two-evils candidate lock, stock and barrel 9 months before the election. That’s enough time to make a baby, and enough time to make a change.

    And again I ask: those of you who are criticizing me (or simply assuming that I’m speaking for myself here): what did you do in 2004 and what do you plan on doing in November?

  39. The consequences of a McCain presidency for everybody would be so bad, so unbelievably bad, that it may be necessary to accept that the alternative is not necessarily going to be everything you might like in a candidate.

    The consequences are global, but the rest of the world doesn’t get to vote in November. I would argue that we have a responsibility. Seriously, these GOP bastards have fucked up the world enough, we need to push the needle back towards sanity, even if Obama or Clinton don’t send it as far as we want it.

  40. Yes, you have read me accurately and correctly understood that I consider her position to be internally inconsistent and to make no sense.

    You’re not reading me accurately. I’m wondering how you came up with the idea that “entitlement” is only a problem for the candidate’s soul and not for his constituents. We had a front-runner whose strategy involved moving to the center and supporting the war. Now we have a front-runner who didn’t support the war, and a possible also-ran who wasn’t anti-war enough soon enough. Progressive disgust and alienation–and a willingness to be up front about refusing Clinton a mandate–seems to me to have had some effect on this process, which means that a non-vote isn’t exactly a null set to a politician.

  41. The consequences of a McCain presidency for everybody would be so bad, so unbelievably bad, that it may be necessary to accept that the alternative is not necessarily going to be everything you might like in a candidate.

    But Obama is magic! He and he alone can beat McCain with one arm tied behind his back!

    Seriously, people, which is it? Obama is the unstoppable force, or McCain is the immovable object?

    Either Obama has votes to burn, or every vote counts. But if every vote counts, why do voters have to eat shit sandwiches? I’m confused.

  42. I think not voting at all–whether it’s Clinton or Obama–would be a huge mistake for women and minorities alike.

    Someone’s not voting? That’s crazy.

  43. Back in 2000 many friends who (like me) were Nader supporters made similar arguments, claiming that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush, so why waste your vote on either? You can vote for Nader or just not bother at all. Remind us how that worked out…

    This election will make a huge difference to Iraqis, women in the U.S. who can get pregnant, anyone who values civil liberties, the citizens of the next country that’ll be invaded by a–gag!–President McCain, and so on and so on.

    And recall that a few hundred votes in Florida gave that state’s 25 electoral votes, and the election, to the worst president in U.S. history.

  44. I don’t know how many of you actually read my original post (linked by zuzu) — but I want to make clear that I wasn’t advocating not voting, or voting third party.

    The point of my post is that advocates of any Democratic candidate, to my way of thinking, ought to be pointing their displeasure at their candidates when they use dirty-tricks in their campaign — especially those that play on racism and sexism — rather than directing their ire toward other voters.

    We are not yet in the national election cycle — we are in the nomination process — there’s no need for ANYONE to hold their nose — this is the time for principled, thoughtful votes for a nominee, and long, impassioned letters to candidates asking them to clean up their campaigns in terms of racism, sexism, and homophobia.

    If Obama wants and needs the vote of this feminist, let him clean up his “periodically speaking” comment. If Clinton wants and needs the vote of this civil rights activist, let her clean up the “shuck and jive” mess with Kuomo. Now. I wrote them both letters to this effect. Did you?

    I don’t HAVE to hold my nose at this point. I’m choosing a nominee — not a president.

  45. Not voting means I don’t have any say, which is worse than having to deal with some silly politically motivated zingers and centrist crap.

    Politics does not begin, nor does it end with the top of the ballot every four years.

    Queers are being murdered. And people are making a litmus test out of a commitment to vote 9 months from now? Portly Dyke’s post wasn’t so much about not voting, it’s about this whole idea that we should circle the wagons and not call Clinton or Obama to task when they reveal how they will be road blocks for progressives.

    And I’ll agree with Portly Dyke. I’m not a Log Cabin Democrat willing to put partisanship over basic human rights and decency. When Obama and Clinton reveal their anti-progressive stripes, I’m going to call them on it.

    I’ll make the claim now. With the way our two-party system is set up, partisanship is incompatible with liberalism and progressivism. We may make the pragmatic choice to hold our nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. But we should make it clear that our obligations are to social, economic and ecological justice, and the honeymoon between Democratic politicians and the left ends five minutes after they are sworn in.

    Queers are being murdered. Kids are being murdered. And I’m sick of mewing about compromise, partisanship, bipartisanship and baby steps. I’m sick of having “lesser of two evils” thrown in my face every time I point out that the Dem’s shit really does stink. I’m sick of how presidential politics has become the litmus test when I want to change the entire fucking system: the congress, the courts, the statehouse, city hall, the trustees, the board of directors, the school board, the teachers, ceos, middle managers and line managers, the stockholders, the store shelves, the media producers, distributors, and audiences.

  46. I’m sick of how presidential politics has become the litmus test when I want to change the entire fucking system: the congress, the courts, the statehouse, city hall, the trustees, the board of directors, the school board, the teachers, ceos, middle managers and line managers, the stockholders, the store shelves, the media producers, distributors, and audiences.

    Seriously. The Republicans — and in particular the religious Reich — came to power because they spent 30 years contesting every election, down to dogcatcher.

  47. From the comments on this posting, it seems part of the argument is due to some confusion as to how the statement “withholding your vote is perceived”. Though it arguably could be clearer as I was thrown off at first due to knowing numerous classmates and co-workers who used the phrase “withholding votes” to denote abstaining from voting, her subsequent comments clarified the initial posting and shows she really means something more politically meaningful rather than staying at home from the polls.

    Due to this clarification and the link Zuzu’s put up to Portly Dyke, her argument is a principled reasoned one that merits much respect. Moreover, it is really a call to action to get supporters of both candidates to rise to the occasion to act according to their professed principles rather than treat them as mere rhetorical window dressing. Last I checked, that was a good thing that is needed to communicate our needs to the politicians/political candidates….and a way to keep them from taking us for granted.

    Furthermore, unless I have missed something…I do not see the initial posting as demanding everyone do this for the sake of her perception of the greater good….only that it is a legitimate principled position IF you feel no political candidate has earned your vote.

    Overall, she makes a far stronger and a respectable case for withholding/voting for a third party candidate than some acquaintances/friends who contend that anyone who votes for any presidential candidates from the two dominant parties in our country, regardless of their reasons, is an effective shill for corporate America.*

    *One friend made an exception for Dennis Kucinich as he perceived him as anti-corporate and most progressive in his platform and economic policies.

  48. And not just elections, but changes in policy by employers, businesses and housing providers as well. They attack the growing awareness of artists and actors coming out of the closet, and the few works of art that don’t assume that everyone involved is straight.

  49. I think zuzu’s calling Obama out and making him address her concerns is the best strategy. Hopefully he will provide answers satisfactory enough where she can vote for him.

    At first I was horrified by zuzu’s post, because while Barack may be insufficiently progressive from her point of view, right-wingers view the Obamas as Ivy Leaque populists who will work for a Socialist America. Michelle is a perennial victim who enjoys playing the race card, while Barack is a racist, anti-Semitic Muslim Christian whose very birth was the product of the international Jewish Communist conspiracy. To them, universal health care represents a complete abdication of personal responsibility. Eliminating tax cuts for the rich, or the unthinkable, raising the rates on unearned income to match those of earned income will deal a death blow to capitalism as we know it, throwing all of America out of work.

    But on the other hand, I have no standing to criticize zuzu. First, as a white male, I obviously can’t hear the dog whistles she can. Second, in 2000 I voted for Nader myself. Gore seemed a DLC sellout like Bill, but without the charisma. His music censoring wife Tipper was a liability in my eyes. But I was living in a Blue state, so I’m not responsible for the W. debacle.

    But I’m not as optimistic about which states will go blue this time. Running against the epitome of evil in 1972, McGovern won only the state of Massachusetts. Gore won the popular vote in 2000 only to lose to Bush. The last time a charismatic good-looking young Democrat defeated a pragmatic Republican, he won only because the Daley Democratic machine stole more votes than did the Downstate Republicans.

    Obama’s not going to be a slam dunk. He’s still a black man; he’s got a very liberal voting record. Independents and moderate Republicans may prefer McCain. The NRA will rally its members to oppose one who proposed banning gun sales within five miles of a school or park. He may end up needing every vote.

    And I fear you can’t lead the country any faster than the country wants to be led. Remember the most progressive candidates, Kucinich and Gravel, had little appeal even to registered Democrats.

  50. I’m sick of mewing about compromise, partisanship, bipartisanship and baby steps

    No shit. 30 years ago, I was making waves in LBGTQ actions and Feminist rallies — guess what — the things that have changed since then NOT because of the administrations that we had, but because of the insistence of constituents.

    In ’92, I was part of a group that raised more than a million $ in one mid-size city — all from the gay community — for Bill Clinton. We were quiet about it (as the campaign wanted us to be), but we did it — because we were confident that the baby steps would become giant leaps. I learned my lesson then, and I don’t intend to repeat it.

    The thing about baby steps is . . . . well, you have to take them, first of all — but they are supposed to be precursor to something else, unless you want to live in an infantile nation.

  51. Reading through this, I can only recall the theme for Blue Majority is “More, Better Democrats” The theme behind that is the Democrat will just about always be better than the Republican, and the primary system is the true method for weeding out bad Democrats.

    Maybe you are in a massively blue state already and figure your vote won’t change things. Maybe you’re in a red state that is the same way. I will point out for the sake of argument, Obama has consistently beaten poll predictions because his ground organization is incredible, so unless polls put him more than 15 points behind in a state this November, you can’t decide he has no chance.

    But really, this whole conversation astounds me. Looking at Obama’s apparent sexism, all I can recall offhand is his “periodically” statement-is there something I’m forgetting?- which isn’t a dog whistle in the traditional sense. When Reagan talked about “State’s Rights” people knew what he was talking about because those were the code words that had been used by racist Southerners since the time of segregation. I won’t belabor the issue but his words didn’t seem to reach that sort of level to me and it being a poorly worded statement rather than subliminal anti-feminist programming seems far more plausible.

    I think the argument that every statement that comes out of a politician’s mouth is coldly calculated is rather silly. First, you can’t train for every situation and more importantly, anyone who’s been in marketing or owned the X-box when the huge controllers were standard knows what comes out of committee can often not be nearly what was intended coming in.

    But let’s assume it was some patriarchy slipped into his words. I just sit here and think: You have a progressive candidate, pro choice, pro sex ed and against abstinence only education. He received a 100% score from Planned Parenthood, he even supported gay rights in front of a Baptist ministry, he lists removing pay inequity between men and women as one of his top civil rights issues………..and you’re going to write someone else’s name in because of the “periodically” comment?

    It’s your vote, and it may call into question my feminist street cred, but get some goddamn perspective!

  52. call his campaign and ask him if he meant what people claim he meant about his “periodically speaking”- it’s a perfect sitch, he’ll never admit it, one can never prove it, so they can just nurse it in their hearts. it’s just so easy.

    if I see one more argument made about about someone’s hidden meaning based on the fact that they are rhetorical geniuses and super cunning masterminds, it’s over. I will ask the Vogons to read poetry. Josh Marshall did it with Hillary/Shuster contrary to all actual words. It was done to Bill over the S. Carolina business (and I would suggest that that was internalized/subconscious racism, but who the hell knows) and it was done with Obama regarding the “periodically”- they are all super genius masterminds, and this allows us to read their hearts, just like George Bush and Vladimir Putin. Everyone could be right, and everyone could be wrong. It’s the Shroedinger’s cat of debates. It is fine to argue that we need to be aware of how language is perceived and the nature of dog whistlery, but it really seems like people are playing one-upsmanship with it and a giant pile of fuckign tea leaves. It is just sad.

  53. If progressives don’t turn out for an insufficiently progressive Democratic nominee in November, then, yeah, we could argue back in forth whether a Republican win would be the candidate’s fault or the electorate’s. But, seriously, at that point who gives a shit?

    So let’s say we decide not to vote for Hillary or Obama in November. Maybe we can teach the Democratic party (and primary voters) some kind of “lesson,” and force them to pick a better candidate next time around; and maybe not. Either way, electing McCain in ’08 will have real world consequences in everything from foreign policy to national healthcare to environmental issues.

    If none of that matters enough to convince you to vote against part of what you believe, fine, but however shitty the candidate, you need to own that you’re also making a choice. (And if pointing that out makes me a bully, I’m actually pretty okay with that.)

  54. Er, because it looks like I didn’t actually get around to saying what I meant in that last post, let me just add:

    I don’t think it’s wrong to send Hillary or Obama a message that you won’t put up with – for example – barely-concealed misogyny or indifference to LGBT issues just because the Republicans are worse.

    But you (and Portly Dyke) seem to be saying that you want to send that message while denying a share in culpability for the self-evident tradeoff you make to send it. No, you don’t have to vote for any Democrat with a pulse, and yes, the party and the candidates are guilty if they run a moderate and lose the support of their base.

    But of course it’s partially your fault if you don’t vote again McCain and McCain wins. How can you possibly argue otherwise?

  55. We’re not stuck, people? We don’t have to accept a lesser-of-two-evils candidate lock, stock and barrel 9 months before the election. That’s enough time to make a baby, and enough time to make a change.

    If it’s enough time to influence a candidate, it’s enough time to influence the course of an election. You seem to be arguing that withholding support from Obama could help bring him around, but that it runs no risk of giving McCain the presidency. I don’t see how you can argue both at the same time.

    I’m not someone who says that every progressive should blindly vote for the most liberal candidate in every election. But it does seem to me that if you think your intervention in the campaign — voting or not voting, supporting or not supporting, whatever — has the potential to put a scare into the candidate, you can’t then deny that it has the potential to alter the election’s outcome.

    And again I ask: those of you who are criticizing me (or simply assuming that I’m speaking for myself here): what did you do in 2004 and what do you plan on doing in November?

    I spent most of a week in Pennsylvania with my daughter in 2004, leafleting and knocking on doors for a state legislative candidate, and in the process working to boost Democratic turnout for the upticket races. Same thing in 2006 for the governor’s race in Maryland. Not sure where we’re going to be this year, but we’ll likely be doing the same thing.

    But I don’t think that fact makes my opinion on this more worthy than yours, any more than the fact that you spent a day in NH in 2004 makes yours more worthy than someone who doesn’t have the resources to go travel to a swing state to volunteer.

  56. The more I read this sort of conversation, the more I realise how bloody marvellous the Australian voting system is.

    Compulsory polling booth attendance, weekend elections, and a good postal and absentee voting system, which means a genuine large-scale effort and a full-on, good-faith public debate on how every eligible voter can be enfranchised. John Howard made teeny inroads into eroding that with tweaks on electoral enrolment, but he was slapped down hard for it, and there are now moves to not only fix but improve the system.

    Preferential voting, so that you can “send the message” that the less-evil major party candidate isn’t your first choice, while still ending up with your vote going to that candidate over the completely-fucking-evil one.

    Pencil-and-paper votes and good scrutineering, meaning no issue with hackable machines, hanging chads, and butterfly ballots. The occasional box not turning up is met with appropriate outrage, public condemnation, and followup.

    It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty good.

    The only solution to the USA’s electoral woes is electoral-system overhaul from the ground up, not scattered inconsequential protest abstentions.

  57. Wow, people are just *determined* to misread this post. Exholt, however, got it right:

    Furthermore, unless I have missed something…I do not see the initial posting as demanding everyone do this for the sake of her perception of the greater good….only that it is a legitimate principled position IF you feel no political candidate has earned your vote.

    Yep. I’m not saying that people *should* do this, or that *I’m* planning on doing this, but that it’s a principled stance to take under certain circumstances.

    And everyone who’s saying that I’m attempting to “evade responsibility” for a McCain win — first, it’s only voters in swing states who even have to make that calculus, and more importantly, anyone who attempts to pin the blame on individual voters is trying to absolve the candidates from responsibility for fighting for each and every vote.

    Make up your minds — either each vote is critically important, or it’s not. And if it *is* critically important, the candidates have the responsibility to appeal to *all* potential voters and not assume that people will vote for them because they don’t have a better option.

  58. Zuzu, the responsibility people are pointing to here isn’t an either/or thing.

    Say there’s a mayoral election in my small town, and I overhear the more progressive candidate referring to someone as a “bitch” one day, when he’s out in public but thinks he can’t be overheard. I convince my whole family to stay home on election day because of it, and he loses by two votes.

    Now, obviously, in one sense, the loss is his responsibility. He behaved like a sexist pig, and alienated a bunch of voters. But in another sense, the loss is completely my responsibility, because if I hadn’t convinced my family to stay home, he’d have won.

    Seems to me that in that situation, I can honorably say that I’m glad he lost, if I am, because of the larger principle at stake. It seems a lot less honorable for me to say, “hey, it’s not my fault” when a friend comes up to me complaining that school funding has been slashed as a direct result of my decision to sit election day out.

  59. Seriously, people, which is it? Obama is the unstoppable force, or McCain is the immovable object?

    You’ve said this a few times, and pardon my ignorance, but–where is the idea of Obama as an “unstoppable force” coming from? I’m not being facetious–it’s simply not something that I’ve been hearing, either on- or offline. Maybe it’s just my perspective as a progressive in a red state (where we’re still feeling the effects of centuries of slavery and institutionalized racism, where many women have no reproductive rights to speak of, where poverty drives a lot of people into the military and off to war, where billboards in the capital city advertise “de-gaying” programs, where the governor prays for rain on the Capitol steps instead of actually doing anything about severe drought), but a win for either Clinton or Obama in the general doesn’t seem like a sure thing to me. A McCain presidency seems like a real and terrifying possibility. The thing I’m wrestling with, on reading this post and the comments, is that intellectually, I completely understand and respect the idea that withholding your vote is a principled stance–but I find that my gut reaction is horror at the idea of a progressive voter staying home on election day just because the progressive candidate isn’t progressive enough.

  60. And as for the swing states thing, it seems to me that cuts both ways, too. If you’re not a swing state voter, and you assume that popular vote totals don’t contribute to a candidate’s mandate or legitimacy, then staying home on election day is an ineffectual protest. It can’t hurt the candidate, so it can’t teach her — or him — a lesson. To be an effective statement, the action needs to have some potency.

    Now, I guess you could argue that by bringing down the margin in New York, it sends a message that you’re not going to put up with whatever it is you’re protesting, but you can’t really send a candidate a message with a vote, because the candidate doesn’t know what motivated your vote — or your decision not to vote. If you happen to get polled, they may draw an inference from your demographics, but that’s pretty tenuous too.

  61. I don’t think that not voting is ever a principled stance because that principle does not get out. No one will come knock on your door because they noticed you didn’t vote and ask you why not, or give a shit much about the answer. Voting third party, however, at least gets your protest point across.

    I was one of those Nader voters in 2000 as well. My vote was in South Carolina, so again, there we go. I’ve also threatened to vote for Cynthia McKinney if certain things happen (like superdelegates deciding the primary contest against the will of the people, for instance.) I absolutely support taking a stand against sellout Democrats.

    In this case, though, it’s going to take more than Obama saying “Periodically, when she’s feeling down” about Hillary Clinton to make me not support him. I just don’t consider that even close to on the level of Bill Clinton comparing Obama’s win in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson’s, or Bob Johnson’s vile remarks about what Obama was doing in Chicago. And I decided to vote for Obama a long time before that.

    It’s a campaign. They get nasty. I was a Dean supporter in 2004 (and traveled to New Mexico to volunteer) and I remember hearing about push-polls from the Kerry campaign that implied that Dean beat his wife, and that emphasized that Dean’s wife was Jewish. So where was I on Election Day, 2004? I was in Philadelphia, knocking on doors for John Kerry. I sent in my South Carolina absentee ballot–even though it could be argued that my vote would not most likely count in South Carolina–and drove 12 hours to bust my ass to elect the man who’d been at least indirectly responsible for smearing the candidate I liked.

    Of course, it’s somehow different this time around because Obama is black and Clinton is female, so suddenly any time an attack is made, it’s on ALL women or ALL blacks. Reminds me of that cartoon about “girls suck at math” that I think is somewhere further down the page here.

    In any case, zuzu, I think that every vote IS critically important, even if you vote in the reddest of red states or the bluest of blue states. And that’s why I will defend wholeheartedly anyone’s right to a third-party or write-in candidate, because at least they’re voting.

    But I am a woman, and a feminist, and so far I haven’t heard anything out of Barack Obama that has made me feel that he doesn’t value my vote. I wish he’d support gay marriage instead of civil unions, but I respect that he went into a black Baptist church on MLK day and called people out on being homophobic.

    As far as my election cred goes, I already mentioned that I voted for Nader in 2000, then went to New Mexico for Dean in 2004, and then Pennsylvania for Kerry later in ’04. This year, I’ve already volunteered in South Carolina and New Jersey and will be busting my ass in my now-home state of PA in a few weeks.

  63. Someone asked earlier what the examples of sexism from Obama are, and I’m also curious if they could be stated. Is it only the “periodically”/”feeling down” comment?

  64. I encourage everyone who believes their state is not a swing state to look at the electoral maps for McGovern in 72 and Jimmy Carter in 1980. In 72 the incumbent was still hip-deep in an intensely unpopular Asian war, with the end not in sight, yet he carried every state but Massachusetts.

  65. I noticed he’s been smug and condescending since the first debate. This is meant to appeal to men. He’s going for men, Independents and Republicans. It’s his strategy and he should cut it out. I heard Clinton apologized yesterday for her racism or at least her husband’s.

    I was livid at friends who voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 but it’s a principled stance.

  66. But of course it’s partially your fault if you don’t vote again McCain and McCain wins. How can you possibly argue otherwise?

    Because it’s the candidate’s fault for not establishing a platform that convinces the most voters to vote for them. This is really basic logic, I understood it when I went through Civics class. You vote for the person you expect to represent you. If no candidate fits the qualifications you set for the base level to earn your vote, NONE OF THEM DESERVE TO GET IT. And that’s their fault, not yours.

    I’ll make this real simple for you, Alana. If every candidate was calling for mass roundups of people who post on blogs with a name that starts with the letter ‘A’ and ship them off to Gitmo, why on Earth would you have any reason to vote for any candidate? Regardless of the fact that one of the candidates is also advocating rounding up letters ‘F’, ‘S’, and ‘T’, whereas the others are not doing so and leaving it at just the ‘A’s. This is, of course, hyperbolic, but the situation for many is as close to being equivalent as to not make any difference.

  67. I wondered whether I should even get involved in this, because based on the brass-knuckling I got in the “dogwhistle” thread, there’s ample opportunity for me to get in big trouble here — but I’m stupid, so I’m going to get involved anyway.

    First of all, zuzu, to answer your “what have you done?” question, I served as the communications director for Wes Clark’s campaign in Alabama in 2004. I spent five days before the South Carolina primary knocking on doors in Columbia trying to get out the vote and braved a snowstorm before the Tennessee primary a few weeks later. When Clark dropped out, I joined the Kerry campaign, serving once again as the communications director in Alabama and giving up countless nights (and very nearly putting my job in jeopardy) to get out the vote in my home state. This year I’ve made hundreds of GOTV phone calls and knocked on numerous doors for Obama, and served as a pollwatcher on Super Tuesday.

    So those are my qualifications, and I’d like to ask you a question: What has Obama not done to “earn your vote” that you would like him to do? Specifically, I’m talking about policy: What has he not said he’ll do that you want him to do?

    Let me put it to you this way: As an Obama supporter, I was disappointed, even pissed, to hear some of the condescending comments directed at Obama by the Clinton campaign, particularly leading up to the South Carolina primary — the comments that more than a few people have deemed “racist dogwhistles.” But in spite of my frustration, I never even considered staying home in November and not voting for Hillary Clinton should she get the nomination. Why? Because no matter how careless some of Bill’s comments were, I know neither he nor Hillary is an actual racist. When the rubber meets the road and it’s time to start actually laying down policy, they’ve done too much good for minorities in this country for me to believe they’re actually prejudiced people.

    Thus I have to ask you, with Obama, do you actually believe he’s sexist? More to the point, do you actually believe that whatever sexist ideas he holds will translate into a rollback, or even a stagnation, of women’s rights in this country? Are your objections to whatever he’s said or done vehement enough that you’re really going to forfeit your right to participate in the most basic act of American democracy?

    And whether you live in a “swing state” or not, yes, your vote is important. A big margin in the nationwide popular vote may not have any impact on the electoral vote count, but it’d be an important symbol that the American voting public has finally, emphatically repudiated the Bush administration’s policies and declared that it’s had enough with the Rove/GOP brand of political discourse in this country. Given how damaging that brand has been to progressives of all stripes for nearly two decades now, I’m surprised and disappointed that someone who’s been as strong and outspoken a voice as you have would actually consider withholding your support for making that symbolic statement.

  68. Another example is during the California debate in which they sat side by side, he kept waving his hand in front of her face. I thought, when is he going to stop that? During the TX debate, they also sat side by side, but he was better. I watch these things and notice but never said anything until other women spoke up on pro-Clinton blogs. If we speak up against it, it will stop. This is a premonition and the sexism will only get worse if we don’t speak up.

  69. do you actually believe he’s sexist?

    Like the Clinton racism strategy, it could be just be a campaign thing, or what’s been called the Southern Strategy with Vaginas.

  71. And my goodness talk about trying to assign “responsibility” given a complete lack of the nuances of the power differences involved. It’s like trying to compare a single grain of rice to Thanksgiving dinner for 8.

    I’ve long since realized that all the debates about votes and voting history have more to do with having a knee-jerk loyalty test than any actual activism. It’s alll about mouthing the right words at the right point in the election cycle. It’s never about actual dollars, time, or rubber on the soles of your shoes.

  72. Isn’t nine months ahead of the election a little early to decide whether either Clinton or Obama has permanently thrown particular liberal groups under the bus?

  73. Isn’t nine months ahead of the election a little early to decide whether either Clinton or Obama has permanently thrown particular liberal groups under the bus?

    I don’t know who said this. But now is a perfect time to call Clinton and Obama out for statements they made last week. The point of the essay is not about voting, but about the frequent calls for us to have a “code of silence” when Democratic candidates invoke racism, sexism, and heterosexism to win votes.

  74. The reason Obama is targeting white men, independents and moderate Republicans is because he and his campaign have to inoculate him against the charge that he is not a “real” American. If he hadn’t moved to the center during the primaries, he would be tagged as the token black candidate and Democratic primary voters would have rejected him already as unelectable. He had to avoid the Jesse Jackson label to have any chance of winning, and that meant doing and saying some things that weren’t very progressive.

    Obama is facing a very tough primary, and he will face an even tougher general election. To win, he will have to do things that piss off part of the Democratic base in order to win over independents.

    Feminists and other progressives are going to have to decide whether or not preventing John McCain from attacking Iran and nominating the successors to 88 year old John Paul Stephens and 75 year-old cancer victim Ruth Bader Ginsburg are important enough goals to suck it up and forgive whatever progressive heresies Obama has to engage in during the election to win.

  75. Yep. I’m not saying that people *should* do this, or that *I’m* planning on doing this, but that it’s a principled stance to take under certain circumstances.

    Zuzu: If you’re not trying to control my mind with your witchy, woman-hating ways, then why do I suddenly have a profound and unshakable compulsion to write in “Zuzu” on my ballot come November? Answer me THAT, evil woman!

  76. I was livid at friends who voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004 but it’s a principled stance.

    I was too….but that was more due to Nader’s attempts to defend the controversial PIRG automatic enrollment policy on my campus back when I was an undergrad in the 1990’s.* When he came to speak to a group of us, he came across more as an overly arrogant telemarketer who felt that his organization is automatically entitled to place a fee on our tuition bill without our prior notification/consent because “he is working for all of us”. 🙄

    My impression of Nader has been quite negative ever since.

    * I’m of the opinion that if an individual/organization feels its cause is just and reasonably argued, they should not have to resort to effectively force college undergrads to pay a fee to support their organization unless they voluntarily opted in first. Neither he nor his organization is automatically entitled to undergrad financial support to the point they automatically tack on a PIRG fee that can only be waived if one goes through the hassles necessary to opt-out….a tactic I’d expect from a sleazy telemarketer….not a principled person/organization fighting for what they consider a just noble cause.

  77. And in terms of divisiveness, I’ve found that electoral partisans are much more likely to bring the nasty to the table. A failue to prioritize participation in the electoral process is a personal failing for them. And I’ve yet to hear a disciplined argument that wrestling the national Democratic party from it’s entrenched corruption and manipulation by some very powerful and nasty corporate interests is a possibility worthy of my full attention.

    And the question remains, are there any dealbreakers that would lead you to cast a third-party vote or no vote at all in an important race? I’m willing to hold my nose and vote for Obama or Clinton, but what about an anti-abortion, anti-gay Democrat who promises to vote with the conservative coalition on those issues? What about a Liberman Democrat?

  78. But I guess pointing out that McCain actually does have a shot at the White House makes me a bully.

    No, but trying to pressure people into voting for Obama even if they feel personally slighted by him and feel he hasn’t done enough to get their vote (even as he goes for the white male moderate vote by personally slighting other voters he assumes will vote for him anyway) is, in fact, making you a bully.

    Well, there you have it. I thought I was making an argument, but apparently I was taking your lunch money.

    Seriously, you can’t publish your plan on a forum designed for debate and then claim you’re being bullied when people debate you.

  79. Well said, Shakesville.

    I proudly supported and voted for Nader in 2004 (and I would have in 2000 had I been 18). I have been charged with personally being responsible for the war, poverty, the erosion of women’s rights, etc. Nevermind that Clinton was the first person to declare that we needed a “regime change” in Iraq, was responsible for more Iraqi deaths than Bush I, and passed more laws to limit access to abortion than many republicans have passed (and he could do so because no feminist organization would protest “their man”). Nevermind that, up until the first gulf war, every major war we’ve been in this century we entered under a Democrat. Nevermind that John Kerry was the co-sponsor of the “Workplace Religious Freedom Act”, with support from Hillary Clinton. Check out why the ACLU was against it.*

    Roe v. Wade was passed under Nixon and a conservatively stacked court. Not because they had a passion for women’s rights but because there was a broad based, strong women’s rights movement that was unequivocally pro-abortion and would not let them do otherwise. Abortion is not a “sad, even tragic choice” for women**, it’s a right that all women should have access to. Period. No restrictions, no compromises, no apologies. It’s that type of movement that we need today. We don’t get that by campaigning for Democrats.

    I will happily vote for Nader again this year.

    *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_Religious_Freedom_Act

    **Hillary Clinton, January 24, 2005. http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/2005125A05.html

  80. Roe v. Wade was passed under Nixon and a conservatively stacked court. Not because they had a passion for women’s rights but because there was a broad based, strong women’s rights movement that was unequivocally pro-abortion and would not let them do otherwise.

    Um, no. First, Roe wasn’t “passed;” it was decided by a court. It’s not a law that was ever passed by Congress or any other elected body. And the court that decided Roe was decidedly more progressive than any Supreme Court since. Even some of the court’s conservatives (like Burger) sided with the majority in Roe; that simply would not happen today. Roe was decided after a long line of progressive opinions by the Warren court; the structure and ideology of the court during the Warren era and immediately after was vastly different than it was today.

    I’m all for women mobilizing to secure abortion rights, and there’s a lot to criticize about the Clinton administration. Certainly the feminist movement had a huge influence on the Court’s decision. I agree that we shouldn’t have to settle for politicians who sell us out. But to argue that abortion rights were “passed” “because there was a broad based, strong women’s rights movement that was unequivocally pro-abortion and would not let them do otherwise” isn’t historically accurate. There remains a strong women’s rights movement that is unequivocally pro-choice, but there’s not going to be a whole lot we can do if a conservative justice replaces Stevens and the court decides to overturn Roe.

  81. Personally, 8 years of Bush, and particularly his re-election in 2004 have pretty much convinced me that there is NEVER going to be a progressive majority in the US, and that the best that anyone progessive is ever going to be able to do there is to try to push the Democrats a bit to the left while smiling and eating shit from the centre. As far as I can see, it’s either that or fascism, and it’s never going to change.

  82. Tennessee Guerilla Women wrote the following today. These are more subtle dogwhistles to men. You can’t quite put a finger on it but it’s code to men to put women in their place and make women feel powerless:

    Obama showed up at a press conference to respond to Hillary’s charges. Obama strolled out, Obama laughed, Obama was dismissive, Obama was clearly so unworried that you have to wonder why he bothered. Press conference? Fan club of embedded adoring media idiots who also famously embraced George W. Bush and his prime time shock and awe thriller of a war.

    In Edinburg, Texas., Mr. Obama briefly stuck his head through a blue curtain at the far end of the press room. “Crank it up, guys,” he yelled to reporters bent over their laptops. “Words matter. Don’t listen to Hillary.” To which he added: “That’s a joke.”

  83. First, yes you’re right. “Passed” is the wrong word. It was decided by the court. The Supreme Court, however, is certainly not immune from public opinion or social movements.

    Even some of the court’s conservatives (like Burger) sided with the majority in Roe; that simply would not happen today.

    That is exactly my point. The 60s and 70s were a different time, arguably because of the social/political culture.

    Roe was decided after a long line of progressive opinions by the Warren court; the structure and ideology of the court during the Warren era and immediately after was vastly different than it was today

    y.

    Yes. Again, one could argue that they were ideologically more liberal because of pressure from the public. You do admit that even ideologically conservative justices were voting more liberal, ask yourself why this was the case. I do concede, however, that it is hard to find definitive proof about the role of social movements in the Supreme Court decisions of the Warren era.

    But to argue that abortion rights were “passed” “because there was a broad based, strong women’s rights movement that was unequivocally pro-abortion and would not let them do otherwise” isn’t historically accurate.

    I think the earlier statements in your post contradict that.

    there’s not going to be a whole lot we can do if a conservative justice replaces Stevens and the court decides to overturn Roe.

    I would argue there is a lot we can do even if a conservative justice replaces Stevens. Don’t underestimate our power.

    There remains a strong women’s rights movement that is unequivocally pro-choice

    I agree. But I hope you agree that it could be bigger and more vocal, especially on national politics outside of election season. I was at the April 24 March for Women’s Lives, which was inspiring. We need to keep that kind of energy going.

    If Clinton or Obama is elected, I think we have to keep her/his feet to the fire. Don’t expect them to simply give us (feminists) anything.

  84. Because it’s the candidate’s fault for not establishing a platform that convinces the most voters to vote for them. This is really basic logic, I understood it when I went through Civics class. You vote for the person you expect to represent you. If no candidate fits the qualifications you set for the base level to earn your vote, NONE OF THEM DESERVE TO GET IT. And that’s their fault, not yours.

    I acknowledged all this. Twice. When I said things like “No, you don’t have to vote for any Democrat with a pulse, and yes, the party and the candidates are guilty if they run a moderate and lose the support of their base.” Really, I’m reading over my two posts and wondering what I wrote that could possibly have made you think I didn’t understand this. It’s true, as far as it goes.

    It remains equally true (and it ought to be self-evident, if I may add with gritted teeth…) that election results are the “fault” of both the candidates and the electorate. Do you really not believe that the voters have anything to do with who wins? If Katie runs against Jeff, and Jeff wins, then everyone who could have voted for Katie and chose not to shares responsibility for the outcome. This is, in your words, “really basic logic,” and it’s incontrovertible. The fact that Katie will have squandered progressive support (and is thus largely to blame herself) doesn’t alter the statement’s truth value.

    I’ll make this real simple for you, Alana. If every candidate was calling for mass roundups of people who post on blogs with a name that starts with the letter ‘A’ and ship them off to Gitmo, why on Earth would you have any reason to vote for any candidate? … This is, of course, hyperbolic, but the situation for many is as close to being equivalent as to not make any difference.

    I’m glad you acknowledge that the above analogy is hyperbolic, but it’s also completely nonsensical.

  85. I’m glad you acknowledge that the above analogy is hyperbolic, but it’s also completely nonsensical.

    Well, good to know that your issues should mean nothing to me, then, I suppose. I was being deliberately OVERLY hyperbolic, but you did not catch it. I would, of course, not expect you to think about any lesser insult/degradation of other people, seeing as how you can’t even think coherently about an egregious insult/degradation of other people. Good on you, for admitting it sooner, rather than later, though. 😉

  86. As someone who has missed plenty of elections due to mostly economic issues (working late, no car, no baby sitter) over the years, I know what it feels like to not be counted. I know that my not-vote wasn’t heard or deeply considered by anyone. I was lumped into a group called “apathy” which of course is pretty much code for “dumb-fuck”.

    That I couldn’t afford to get my act together to get to vote never seemed to concern anyone anywhere I’ve lived in the last twenty plus years is what has always wrankled me.

    When I did activism on the part of poor folks like me I found (not much to my surprise) that most people like me had issues like me to overcome before they could even have the time to give a shit about who the president is or was.

    Talk of wanting a candidate to care about me seems rather like hoping that I’ll grow wings tomorrow and win the lottery as well. Ain’t happening as far as I can tell. The power that moves the system runs from the steam of upper middle class white folks. They sit in the front row and their concerns get heard first. Putting up the light meter to check the shade of progressive either candidate effuses from the stage may be fun and all and somehow important for history and discussion, but fact is my issues are off the radar.

    I’d like to see more talk about Katrina and the full -scale cultural genocide that is taking place there, the unresolved homelessness caused by that, I’d like to see the blaming stop for one fucking minute on first time home buyers who were sucked in by unscrupulous brokers running rampant in an unregulated market. I tried to believe that a rational person could understand the illogic of the argument for welfare reform, but I learned that rationalism has no place in politics. Its trading, bargaining and accepting the best of what you can get today; one step on the ladder and a position to move to the next rung at the first opportunity. That’s all.

    I’d like to see someone give a flying fuck about the fact that we continue to call ourselves the wealthiest nation while we still have people who die of preventable diseases, a third world infant mortality rate, parents who have to leave their children unattended for hours while they work low paying jobs, etc. etc.

    So, I vote anyway, even though I know that neither John Kerry, Barack Obama, Bill or Hillary Clinton or even Jesse Jackson would have the skills to walk in my shoes successfully for one week. I vote anyway for them even though I know for a fact that only a few will challenge them on the issues dear to me and that many people who live in a hell like mine will choose to stay home like they do every year because working for survival today (showing up to work, not being able to ask to get out early, making sure the kids are at home safe) is more important than voting for someone who probably won’t hear their and my pleas from way back in the eye bleeder seats in the auditorium.

    But I’ll vote anyway if I can this year because when I can, its better than doing nothing and knowing that I could have at least done something to stop the worse part of the impending storm.

    To answer your question Zuzu:

    In 2000, in Manchester NH, I tried to leave my project (I’m self employed as a contractor) early, but mis judged my timing and arrived at the polling place (Carpenter Center, Merrimack St.) at 7:02 (my watch) to find the place dark, empty and the doors locked tight.

    In 2004 in Manchester, the polling place was changed (and its changed again this time around) as the districts keep getting re arranged and I made it to vote for Kerry and also got a long-time blue collar conservative to vote Kerry as well. He’s been pissed for the last four years, as if Kerry personally let him down by losing.

  87. It remains equally true (and it ought to be self-evident, if I may add with gritted teeth…) that election results are the “fault” of both the candidates and the electorate.

    Well, personally, I think this is a completely idiotic claim, as the “electorate” has no control over what those they are voting on say, do, rally for, or decide, so at best, the electorate carries roughly a percent or two of the burden. So much as to be negligible per person (but that won’t stop you, Alana, from finger wagging, will it?). Well, I will blame the politicians for their failures, and tell the electorate to vote for people who will represent them, whereas you will tell them to vote for singularly two people who may or may not represent them, and only those two people because ZOMG TWO PARTY SYSTEM!!!!!

    I hope you don’t mind if I think your endeavor is stupid, fruitless, without merit, and a symptom of tunnel vision.

  88. Nothing still stop me from finger-wagging, Jack. It’s only when my digits are in self-righteous motion that I feel really, truly alive.

    I want to point out, though, that once again you’ve attributed words to me that I didn’t say. I didn’t argue that not voting for a Democrat couldn’t be a principled stand. In fact, I think I said, “I don’t think it’s wrong to send Hillary or Obama a message that you won’t put up with – for example – barely-concealed misogyny or indifference to LGBT issues just because the Republicans are worse.”

    I merely said that abstaining has real-world consequences, and that people who choose that route should factor those consequences into their decision. Because, yes, we have a choice and we’re all culpable for the outcome.

    And no, I don’t mind if you think my opinion is stupid, fruitless, without merit, and a symptom of just about anything (as well as bullying). Can I respond that I think your position amounts to the assertion that two or three people bear 98% of the responsibility for failures on a national scale, and that voters in a democracy are under no obligation to exercise (or decline to exercise) what power they have in a mindful way? And that I find that sublimely irresponsible?

    Oops, there go my fingers again.

  89. It remains equally true (and it ought to be self-evident, if I may add with gritted teeth…) that election results are the “fault” of both the candidates and the electorate. Do you really not believe that the voters have anything to do with who wins? If Katie runs against Jeff, and Jeff wins, then everyone who could have voted for Katie and chose not to shares responsibility for the outcome. This is, in your words, “really basic logic,” and it’s incontrovertible. The fact that Katie will have squandered progressive support (and is thus largely to blame herself) doesn’t alter the statement’s truth value.

    You know something that sticks in my mind through all these discussions about the responsibility of individual voters?

    Documentary footage ripped off uncut 1992 CNN feeds of Larry King telling Bill Clinton that Turner wants to “change the world” and can “really help you.” Documentary footage showing how CNN buried progressive candidates in the Democratic presidential primary by cutting of their mike and not giving them professional camera and makeup crews.

    There is such a fucking huge imbalance of power in this analysis that to assign individual voters responsibility equal to that of establishment candidates who are showered with privilege from every corner of our political and social process just doesn’t make sense. The impact and power of individual voters is so vanishingly small compared to the power of Gore, Kerry, Clinton and Obama that it makes so sense to me to waste the breath berating Zuzu for a choice she may or may not make 9 months in the future.

    Talking about the responsibility of individual voters and the responsibility of candidates in the same breath as if they are at all equivalent is an absurdity. It’s comparing a triviality to one of the most obvious ways that empowered interests flex their muscle.

    But yet, we still keep coming back here, engaging in divisive in-fighting rather than organizing ways to push our politics into all sectors of society.

  90. Zuzu & JackGoff & PortlyDike are right, and maybe you have to have heard “You’re likeable enough, tinfoil hattie” and “Tinfoil hattie periodically, when she feels down, attacks,” and “You can’t play ’cause you’re a girl, tinfoil hattie,” and “You’re not fuckable enough, tinfoil hattie,” and “You’re too fuckable, and inciting men to rape, tinfoil hattie” to understand the insidious effect of sexist dog whistles.

    And no, I’m not IN ANY WAY saying that Obama has said anything but my first two examples in the above paragraph. I’m saying that those kinds of comments all fit the same genre: putting women in their place, which is beneath men. In every sense.

    And maybe you haven’t been on the receiving end of “Jessie Jackson won this state too,” (nudge-nudge) or “Barack Hussein OSAMA,” or “I wouldn’t join a LYNCHING PARTY FOR MICHELLE OBAMA WITHOUT PROOF” or “You can’t do that kind of shuck-and-jive thing” so you aren’t necessarily tuned in to the sting of racist dog whistles.

    At least sexism gets discussed more frequently now. What about Obama defending homo-hater Donnie McClurken? He explained that McClurken only wants to cure unhappy gays who wish they could be hetero. Pshaw, teh gays can’t affect my election anyway, so I don’t have to court them?

    I want to know where both candidates stand, and what they will do to address, the following: women’s reproductive health, gay “marriage” (marriage should be a RELIGIOUS term, in my view), poverty, unequal pay, thousands of blacks STILL displaced by Hurricane Katrina (and blamed for not blowing up their emergency rubber boats themselves and rowing out of there), a galling, reprehensibly immoral war, the widening gap between rich and poor, homelessness, women being murdered every single day by spouses/boyfriends/ex-spouses/ex-boyfriends claiming them as property, and gay and trans people being murdered every day — which is somehow sort of “funny,” you know? Because those people are WEIRD, you know?

    All you who claim voting is a responsibility: yes, it is. But it’s also a RIGHT, not a requirement. If neither candidate clearly discusses ANY of the issues that desperately need to be addressed in this country, I am not therefore obligated to vote for the nominee anyway, simply because s/he is “better than McCain.”

    Prove it, I say. Don’t just say “I’m ready on Day One!” and “I’m for change!” without telling me what you’re going to do about so-called “liberal” issues. Meanwhile, I don’t actually care who’s pissed if I don’t vote for a candidate who turns my stomach. Too friggin’ bad. I’m tired of riding UNDER THE BUS too.

  91. In terms of bang for the buck, how is finger-wagging at individual voters disenchanted with gender-baiting and race-baiting democratic candidates doing any good? Is it going to stop those candidates from using race and gender prejudice in order to score points in this primary race?

  92. it makes so sense to me to waste the breath berating Zuzu for a choice she may or may not make 9 months in the future.

    It certainly doesn’t make sense when I never said that I planned on doing this. But somehow, “this is a legitimate stand” became “I’m doing this, you have to do this, and everybody should do this.”

    But by all means, keep telling yourself that I’m planning to simply not vote.

  93. And dare I say it. The choice on the left to spend so much energy wagging the finger at individual voters rather than at systematic disenfranchisement and voter fraud, biased enforcement of ballot access laws, media bias favoring candidates supportive of the status quo, bad behavior on the part of our candidates, the electoral college, and all the other factors that make leftists profoundly frustrated and skeptical of the electoral process is part of the problem. It is, in a simple phrase, victim-blaming.

    It is another example of attacking the people who are in the position of reacting to or accomodating systems of power rather than the systems.

  95. But by all means, keep telling yourself that I’m planning to simply not vote.

    I didn’t think you were, but thanks for the clarification.

  97. Why, C, are you talking about voting, about poverty, or about the Obesity Crisis™?

    I think this criticism can apply to all of the above, and the wars over lipstick and “straight acting” LGBTs as well.

  98. Pingback: And I Was Worrying That I Was Crazy at Faux Real

  99. As someone in a red state whose state will go Republican no matter how I vote or if I vote at all, either in the primary or in the actual presidential race (and for that matter, a state that Dems at the federal level frequently ignore), I have no problem sitting out of the primary and holding my nose to vote for whichever Dem comes out ahead. I’m not a fucking rube because I don’t like either option.

  100. I hear stupid shit like this all the time. “We’re marginalized… we won’t vote because there’s no perfect candidate that represents us” Grow up. If you can’t see that we are making progress and that either Clinton or Obama are a hell of an improvement over the shit we’ve got in the White House now, you just go sit in a corner and bitch while the rest of us get to work.

  101. Can I respond that I think your position amounts to the assertion that two or three people bear 98% of the responsibility for failures on a national scale, and that voters in a democracy are under no obligation to exercise (or decline to exercise) what power they have in a mindful way?

    Responsibility is a precarious thing, but the people who want to be elected president? THEY WANT POWER. THEY WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY. WE HAVE TO GIVE BOTH TO THEM WHEN WE ELECT THEM. Question everything and every one who wants said power. Voters in a democracy have little power compared to the person elected as their president. You question voters before you question those seeking the presidency.

    And if you think differently, I have no further things to say to you.

  102. Grow up.

    You first. No one needs your you looking down your nose at them to know tha the vote matters. They want people they would want to cote for. A choice chosen between a hundred misogynist bullshiters is no choice.

  103. Shit. I cant type tonight. Should read:

    “You first. No one needs you looking down your nose at them to know that the vote matters. They want people they would want to vote for. A choice chosen between a hundred misogynist bullshiters is no choice”

  104. Well I”ll be, I went out for dinner and come back and the page is burning!

    I strongly agree with CB; the entire system is fucked up and those of us on the losing really need to demand change. Also, I don’t think the ballot box is where that happens, it happens in the streets, on the phones, door to door; in other words, with real fricking work, that unfortunately I can’t do right now, but if the kitchen gets hot enough (its close), don’t think I won’t jump outside and hit the sidewalk baby!

    Also, am I the only one who has had it up to here with people saying, “Change happens at the ballot box, that’s the only place you can make your voice heard.” The biggest fucking lie told by the best liars with the most to protect.

  105. You question voters before you question those seeking the presidency.

    The “You” in question is those who are disagreeing with Zuzu on this thread. I’m too pissed at the moment to type correctly, as it seems, but that was what I meant.

  106. You question voters before you question those seeking the presidency.

    The “You” in question is those who are disagreeing with Zuzu on this thread.

    Your position, then, is that there is no room for disagreement with Zuzu on this issue at all?

  107. “Grow up. If you can’t see that we are making progress and that either Clinton or Obama are a hell of an improvement over the shit we’ve got in the White House now, you just go sit in a corner and bitch while the rest of us get to work.”

    I am grown up.

    I’m a 52 year old lesbian who has been doing activist work since before many of the people who want to lecture me were out of diapers (or in some cases, even born). Not “watching from the sidelines and bitching about it” work — canvassing, marching, lobbying, forming PACs, campaigning, raising money, phone-banking, caucusing, visiting and writing my legislators (I was marching against the Vietnam war in High School, before I could vote, fer fuck’s sake!) — and I’ve learned some shit in that time — I’ve especially learned that in politics, you don’t always get what you want, but it’s pretty much guaranteed that you get what you settle for (or less).

    FWIW, I think that vociferously questioning the candidates now, during the primary process, is precisely the work that responsible progressives should be doing. So I AM doing my work, thank you very much.

    I’m disgusted at people who call themselves liberals/progressives who have “chosen their candidate” and then turned off all mental activity or integrity-monitoring. Sheeple got us into this mess. I refuse to be one of them.

    Oh, and btw, badkitty — that “progress” you’re talking about? It didn’t happen because people like me shut up and voted the party line — it was the direct result of a lot of loud-mouths like me who kept “bitching” about it — but not from the corner.

  108. Your position, then, is that there is no room for disagreement with Zuzu on this issue at all?

    Well, that you should go after the candidates as opposed to going after people who want them to stop using sexism or racism to get ahead. What I am against is your stance that saying a candidate does not represent you is not enough reason to not vote for them.

  110. Yes, the leaders follow where the people lead. I get that. I believe that. We need to cause trouble and protest and make sure silenced voices are heard.

    BUT refusing to participate in the system because it’s corrupt does not make the system go away. It merely ensure that the most corrupt will continue to hold power.

    Look how well things worked out in 2000 when some well-intentioned people decided to “send a message to the Democratic party” y voting for Nader. My, that turned out well, didn’t it?

  112. Nice to meet you, Portly Dyke. I’m a 45 year old lesbian who’s been causing trouble and protesting and voting almost as long as you.

    What I’ve been hearing from some people is that they won’t vote at all if they can’t get a candidate who represents them, as if a transgendered, socialist lesbian tree-hugging vegan is going to magically appear out of the forest as a realistic viable presidential candidate*. Cripes, we couldn’t get Kucinich out of first gear.

    I have no problem with holding the current candidates responsible for using b.s. and “dogwhistles” to gain political favor ( not that I’m convinced that all of those examples were dogwhistles). I’m just not willing to throw away my opportunity to vote and work within the system while I protest and argue and push at the system from the outside. That seems disrespectful to the people, such as yourself, who worked so damn hard to ensure that we’ve gotten as far as we have.

    Did any of us imagine, 8 years ago, that our choices this year would include a black man and a woman? They may have their flaws – they grew up in the same f*cked up culture that the rest of us did – but damn, it’s progress and I’m proud.

    *going for a point here, not disrespecting any of the people listed in my wildly exaggerated stereotype.

  113. Didn’t you agree with Zuzu with post #89?

    CB: Yes, but only partially. I agree that withholding your vote in November can be a principled decision. I take exception to the bit about how “all the bullying about handing the election to McCain and losing Roe v. Wade” isn’t relevant. It is.

    I think that saying, “I am not voting because no Democrat represents me, and the potential consequences of a Republican win are not enough to sway my decision” is a principled and rational decision, if not one I would ever make. I think that saying “I am not voting because no Democrat represents me, and if the Republicans win it’s the Democrats’ fault for not representing me!” is on some level a true statement, but it’s neither principled nor entirely rational.

    And yes, I know that Zuzu hasn’t said either of those things, but her post seems to me to imply that the second statement would be justified whether or not she chooses to make it.

  114. No, you’re just inferring that, Alana. Don’t impute arguments to me that I haven’t made.

    Votes are leverage, folks. If you just get in line and uncomplainingly vote the party line because you’re not going to get better, then you’ve lost your leverage to make any sort of progress. If you’re saying now that you will not vote for a candidate who uses racial or sexist or homophobic dogwhistles, then you’re putting the candidates on notice that the tactics used in the primary are unacceptable and that the candidate will have to do more to get your vote.

    You’d think the Democrats would already be on notice that a certain number of progressives are unhappy with them and willing to vote for other candidates, given the number of people who voted for Nader in 2000 and 2004. But instead of trying to win those voters *and* still pursue the swing voters, they’re sending a message that they still don’t want the votes of people who care about stuff like racism, sexism and homophobia.

  115. Pingback: You ain’t never feel your feet moving before? « Problem Chylde: Nerdy but Mighty (and Still Learning)

  116. If you don’t think that there’s bullying and discounting going on among so-called progressives — here are a few “choice bits” I found today in a post on another blog about my original post at Shakesville (from a white male blogger):

    “narcissistic and lame” — and in comments, from other males: “petulant”, “too dumb for words”, “idiocy”

    All this, coming from my supposed “allies”.

    Because I dare to speak up and complain that the candidates during the primary process are not doing their jobs in considering me a valuable constituent, and working hard to get my vote.

    Honest to fuck, this is why I rarely post about politics. I think that most voters wouldn’t know what real participation in the political process was if it bit them in the ass. Most of them want to make a quick decision, and then wait around watching the circus until they pull the lever — oh, and since they’re bored while they’re doing that, they can rip on me for actually being concerned about the demonstration of principles in the candidates.

    If by some amazing chance we do not have a Democratic president elected in November, I will place at least some of the blame on Democratic voters who keep telling queers, feminists, and people of color to stop being so sensitive, sit down, and shut up.
    Arrrrrggggggh!

  117. zuzu – what am i doing this year? working the phone banks for obama. attending caucus. becoming a delegate and attending the congressional caucus next month. talking to every damn person i can get to listen about how important it is to get involved in some f*cking way rather than sitting on the couch watching american idol and reading celebrity magazines. i’m also on the board of directors for the local sexual assault agency and support the local women’s clinic. i also work for gay rights and confront any homophobic, sexist or racist comments that float my way. i’m also a member of the local chapter of an international nonprofit that promotes breast cancer awareness and advocates change in prevention, treatment and research.

    that pretty much fills up my life but if you have any other ideas, i’d be happy to hear them.

  118. that pretty much fills up my life but if you have any other ideas, i’d be happy to hear them.

    Here’s an idea: Quit telling people who disagree with you to you “just go sit in a corner and bitch while the rest of us get to work.”

    Arrogant, assholish comment. I don’t fucking agree with you.

    AND I don’t sit on my ass and watch American Idol, either.

  119. Because I dare to speak up and complain that the candidates during the primary process are not doing their jobs in considering me a valuable constituent, and working hard to get my vote.

    No, because they disagree with you, which is–of course–your right to do. They just object to you position based on 1) two-party electoral politics and 2) the merits of your argument.

    You also forgot to mention that one of those male commenters disagreed because he feels that Obama will do right by the LGBT community and is himself gay. So the suggestion that they’re somehow insufficiently liberal or blinded by white-male privilege is mistaken–and wholly unsupported.

  120. This is what drives me fucking nuts about liberals.

    What did the fundamentalist right-wingers do when they couldn’t get the Republicans to do what they wanted? They infiltrated from the inside. They got themselves elected to school boards, town councils, state legislatures, judgeships, and Congress by working below the radar until there were too many of them to be ignored anymore and they became the kingmakers of the Republican Party.

    What did liberals do when the Democrats started turning to the right?

    They walked away.

    Sure, you can defend it as a principle, but it turns out to not be terribly effective in getting the party to do what you want, now did it?

  121. “No, because they disagree with you, which is–of course–your right to do. They just object to you position based on 1) two-party electoral politics and 2) the merits of your argument.”

    If they disagree with the merits of my argument, aren’t they at least responsible to understand the actual point of my post? Jus’ sayin’.

  123. Sorry, but if you don’t vote, you have abdicated your right to criticize the results. You’re also not much of a citizen. If you can’t stand the Democratic candidates, vote for a third party candidate. But how dare you tell us not to vote! People have *died* for that right!

  124. Sorry Ellid, you’re wrong. I’m not REQUIRED to vote, and I have a right to criticize anything I damn well want to. It’s called “Freedom of speech.” I don’t have to meet the criterion of having voted in order to be allowed to speak.

    Nice try, though.

    And nobody told YOU not to vote. Both this post and PortlyDyke’s are saying: Hold these candidates’ feet to the fire. The general election is 9 months away. What ARE each of them going to do about poverty, discrimination against women and gays, the rape culture we live in, women’s reproductive rights, affordable housing? I want to know before I choose whom to vote for.

  125. Mnemosyne: What did liberals do when the Democrats started turning to the right?

    They walked away.

    How is refusing to remain silent when Democratic candidates use racist and sexist dogwistles, “walking away?”

    Ellid: Sorry, but if you don’t vote, you have abdicated your right to criticize the results.

    The U.S. Constitution would disagree with you on that. And it’s rather irrelevant to the point of this post anyway.

    BadKitty: what am i doing this year? working the phone banks for obama. attending caucus. becoming a delegate and attending the congressional caucus next month. talking to every damn person i can get to listen about how important it is to get involved in some f*cking way rather than sitting on the couch watching american idol and reading celebrity magazines. i’m also on the board of directors for the local sexual assault agency and support the local women’s clinic. i also work for gay rights and confront any homophobic, sexist or racist comments that float my way. i’m also a member of the local chapter of an international nonprofit that promotes breast cancer awareness and advocates change in prevention, treatment and research.

    All of these things do more to change our society than the 10 minutes you will spend in a voting booth this year. In addition those 10 minutes should be both private and confidential. So why are those 10 minutes being used as a test of commitment to progressive causes?

  126. I’ll repeat the questions I posed upthread:

    Would you unreservedly vote for an anti-abortion democrat who promises to join conservatives on parental notification and late-term restrictions?

    Would you unreservedly vote for an anti-gay democrat who promises to join conservatives on state and federal amendments prohibiting same-sex unions?

    Would you unreservedly vote for an pro-war democrat who promises to join conservatives on extending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan indefinitely?

    If you can’t without reservation answer yes to all three questions, then you agree with zuzu in substance that not-voting can be a principled decision. You are just quibbling about circumstance and detail.

  127. Well, zuzu, I guess that you won’t complain about whoever is elected, if you forgo voting.

    Well, Chandara, maybe if you RTFP and all the comments that say otherwise, you’d have a clue that I’ve never said that this is what I plan to do.

    But keep right on misreading the words right in front of your face. It always gives me a little frisson to be lectured by someone who didn’t RTFP.

  128. But how dare you tell us not to vote! People have *died* for that right!

    Same response as to Chandara: RTFP. I have not told you not to vote (and what kind of freethinker are you if you decide to not vote because some jackass on the internet “told us not to”?).

    I really love being lectured about my civic duty by people who can’t be bothered to read.

  129. Sheeple got us into this mess. I refuse to be one of them.

    Ramen to that. Like I’ve said over at Shakesville – I don’t fault anyone for pulling the lever for whomever they want. So, I’d appreciate it if the same people stop trying to shame me for my choice which, under no circumstances, will be Obama unless he makes some pretty big fucking changes between now and Nov. But, as others have pointed out, I have a vag, so mine is not the vote he’s after.

    And OMG:

    Sorry, but if you don’t vote, you have abdicated your right to criticize the results. You’re also not much of a citizen. If you can’t stand the Democratic candidates, vote for a third party candidate. But how dare you tell us not to vote! People have *died* for that right

    That’s a whole block of NOT GETTING IT.

  130. Back in 2000 many friends who (like me) were Nader supporters made similar arguments, claiming that there was no real difference between Gore and Bush, so why waste your vote on either? You can vote for Nader or just not bother at all. Remind us how that worked out…

    I’m sick of the Democrats. I hate them even more than the GOP now. I’m voting for Nader now. The Democrats can’t possibly win this election. Their attacks on on another are going to hurt them, and McCain will win easily. The superpatriots in the GOP must be laughing their asses off. Thanks Democrats for throwing away yet another election…

  131. The Presidency is just a job. I don’t give a flying fuck if this person is obnoxious, arrogant, dresses funny, etc. I vote for the person most likely to push the agenda most in-line with my interests. Call me a jackass, whatever. Clinton, at this moment, is the preferred.

  132. Well, for what it’s worth, I’ll probably be voting for whoeverthehell is the Democratic candidate this time through, or perhaps not: I’m in Massachusetts, so it’s not likely to make a hell of a lot of difference.
    But what irritates the ever-living fuck out of me is any Democratic primary candidate using these cheap rhetorical tricks, for what cause? For the big, moral cause of being the Democratic candidate in the general election. The implication is that both Clinton and Obama thought it was important enough that they be the one on the top of the ticket that it didn’t matter if they insulted part of their presumptive constituency to get there. Seriously, another Democrat getting to run for president instead of you is worth being racist, sexist or anyotherist? Hell, I’m an obnoxious little snot and I don’t have anything like the sort of ego that would lead me to make that determination.
    This election had so much potential to make me feel good about voting for the eventual candidate, and now I’m not going to, and that pisses me off.

  133. If they disagree with the merits of my argument, aren’t they at least responsible to understand the actual point of my post? Jus’ sayin’.

    I would say yes, but for several complications:

    1) As per zuzu’s post, apparently reading your post as an implicit argument for not voting was a common misreading.
    2) Your strongest explicit argument is “stop blaming the voters and blame the candidates”. For what? Losing support? If the candidates are making sub rosa sexist and homophobic comments–but support never changes–they why bother with the issue of blame? Blame for the election that they won’t lose because people (like yourself) who were bothered by those comments voted for them anyway? What would people be blaming the voters for then?
    3) There’s a strong case to be made that your implicit argument is “we’re going to get thrown under the bus just like we’ve been thrown under the bus before”–to which the commenters you refer to responded. They weren’t buying the Obama language (or McClurkin apperance) as dogwhistles. (Perhaps in this case it would be closer to say they rejected your premise)

  134. AND I don’t sit on my ass and watch American Idol, either.

    Woah, tinfoil hattie. I was not directing my comment at you. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear. I was referring to the “sheeple” I encounter every day who find JLo giving birth to be the most important current event and can’t be bothered to even make that 10 minute trip to the voting booth every 4 years.

    My bad. Sorry.

  135. Your strongest explicit argument is “stop blaming the voters and blame the candidates”. For what? Losing support?

    No — for willfully throwing support away, which, if the arguments of those who want me to shut up about sexist and racist tactics are valid — “This election is too important for us to be picky about that stuff!” “ZOMG four more years of Republicans!” — if those arguments hold water, than it would follow that the Democratic candidates, and later, the selected nominee, would need and want every single Democratic voter, plus a bunch of undecideds and fed-up Republicans.

    Since there are other words to use, and other black minister singers to bring onto your stage, and it is possible to make an apology after a gaff, the fact that the candidates are not choosing these options is, to my mind — just . . . . stupid, and would seem to indicate that they don’t think this election is important enough to, you know — listen to the complaints of feminists, queers, and people of color when they are offended or put off by the choices of the candidates.

    Boy, that’s new, eh?

    I’m guessing that the people who have taken time and energy to lecture me about how important this election is haven’t actually taken the time to write their candidate and say: “Hey, you’re throwing away votes.” — which would seem the logical thing to do if you’re concerned about a Dem win in November.

  136. Woah, tinfoil hattie. I was not directing my comment at you. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear. I was referring to the “sheeple” I encounter every day who find JLo giving birth to be the most important current event and can’t be bothered to even make that 10 minute trip to the voting booth every 4 years.

    BadKitty,

    The vast majority of people I know who don’t vote are not doing it because they are sheep…but because their employment terms are such that they cannot make it to the polls after the opening/before the closing when you factor in commuting time and the necessity of having to work two or more jobs to make ends meet.*

    Moreover, while volunteering to work in a political campaign/monitor the election process is a valuable service….it is unfortunate that one needs some level of economic privilege such as a well-paying job with reasonable employment terms so one can take off days/leave work early to partake……a privilege I doubt most people have.

    In light of all of this, I have often wondered why Election/Primary days are not made paid Federal/State Holidays so everyone is given the optimal opportunities to participate in the process.

  137. In light of all of this, I have often wondered why Election/Primary days are not made paid Federal/State Holidays so everyone is given the optimal opportunities to participate in the process.

    I suspect that you’ve answered your own question…

  138. I had plans for writing a long post on why withholding your vote in November is a perfectly rational, defensible and principled stance if you’re offended by racist dogwhistles coming out of the Clinton camp or sexist dogwhistles coming from Obama. Why? Because it’s not the voter’s job to just suck it up and vote for someone who hasn’t worked for your vote; it’s the candidate’s job to make sure that he or she doesn’t turn off voters. And all the bullying about handing the election to McCain and losing Roe v. Wade isn’t going to change that one simple fact.

    Why not vote for Ralph Nader? He’s running again.

    McCain will probably win anyway. The South is worth 168 electoral votes, and McCain will probably win all of them anyway.

  139. Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Five Minutes After They Are Sworn In

Comments are currently closed.