Angry White Women

C

Cypress

Well-known member
Nicely played Frank Rich. This dude is rapidly becoming one of my favorite columnists.


Angry Women Love McCain?

by Frank Rich

Now, there’s no question that men played a big role in Mrs. Clinton’s narrow loss, starting with Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Mark Penn. And the evidence of misogyny in the press and elsewhere is irrefutable, even if it was not the determinative factor in the race. But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence.

The fictional scenario of mobs of crazed women defecting to Mr. McCain is just one subplot of the master narrative that has consumed our politics for months. The larger plot has it that the Democratic Party is hopelessly divided, and that only a ticket containing Mrs. Clinton in either slot could retain the loyalty of white male bowlers and other constituencies who tended to prefer her to Mr. Obama in the primaries.

This is reality turned upside down. It’s the Democrats who are largely united and the Republicans who are at one another’s throats.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah. While there's little doubt that Clinton supporters were crestfallen about their candidate losing, and occasionally angry (and sometimes justifiably so) about the sexist undertones of the media's portrayal of Clinton's campaign, and yet where the hell are all these angry women that are going to vote for McMaverick? Who the hell are these alleged angry liberal Democratic women who are supposedly going to vote for a dude who is totally 19th century on women's rights? I personally haven't met a Clinton supporter who's going to vote for McMaverick. I've met some who are bummed out; some who are disappointed ; some who are angry. Hell, I was disappointed and angry when Edwards bailed, and I bitched and moaned about the media treatment Edwards got. But, I wasn't accused of being some PMS'ing crazy, irrational floozie. Those clinton supporters will get over it. Or, at least 99% of them will. I'm ain't worried about it. Clinton set the tone for a gracious exit from the race, and a full throated endorsement of Obama. From what I could tell, Clinton's speech was far more explicit and powerful in support of Obama, than Bill Bradley's concession ever was for Gore in 2000, or Ronald Reagan's was towards Gerry Ford in 1976.

Yet the myth of Democratic disarray is so pervasive that when “NBC Nightly News” and The Wall Street Journal presented their new poll results last week (Obama, 47 percent; McCain, 41 percent) they ignored their own survey’s findings to stick to the clichéd script. Both news organizations (and NBC’s sibling, MSNBC) dwelled darkly on Mr. Obama’s “problems with two key groups” (as NBC put it): white men, where he is behind 20 percentage points to Mr. McCain, and white suburban women, where he is behind 6 points.

Since that poll gives Mr. Obama not just a 19-point lead among all women but also a 7-point lead among white women, a 6-point deficit in one sliver of the female pie is hardly a heart-stopper. Nor is Mr. Obama’s showing among white men shocking news. No Democratic presidential candidate, including Bill Clinton, has won a majority of that declining demographic since 1964. Mr. Kerry lost white men by 25 points, and Mr. Gore did by 24 points (even as he won the popular vote).

“NBC Nightly News” was so focused on these supposedly devastating Obama shortfalls that there was no mention that the Democrat beat Mr. McCain (and outperformed Mr. Kerry) in every other group that had been in doubt: independents, Catholics, blue-collar workers and Hispanics. Indeed, the evidence that pro-Clinton Hispanics are flocking to Mr. McCain is as nonexistent as the evidence of a female stampede. Mr. Obama swamps Mr. McCain by 62 percent to 28 percent — a disastrous G.O.P. setback, given that President Bush took 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, according to exit polls. No wonder the McCain campaign no longer lists its candidate’s home state of Arizona as safe this fall.
Click to expand...

Frank, don't you get it? The media has a vested interest in twisting the poll numbers to make a narrative of a "women problem" for Obama, or to create the perception of a real horse race between Obama and the Fossil.

The ludicrous idea that votes from Clinton supporters would somehow make up for McCain defectors is merely the latest fairy tale brought to you by those same Washington soothsayers who said Fred Thompson was the man to beat and that young people don’t turn up to vote.
Click to expand...

Again, nicely played Frank Rich. I'll pound half a bottle of tequila and eat the worm, if I ever met a Democratic Clinton partisan who is shouting from the roof tops they they are actually going to vote for Mr. Overturn-Roe-V.-Wade.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?em&ex=1213675200&en=a88f794b8a0b3058&ei=5087
 
AssHatZombie said:
Clinton suspended her campaign. SHe didn't exit. She has no character. Stop bitching, white woman.
Click to expand...

So did Romney and Edwards and all of the major candidates. It's the only way they can continue to raise funds to pay off their campaign debts.

In other words;

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND SIT FUCK DOWN UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOUR USUAL FEAR OF MOMMY TO BASE YOUR ANSWERS ON.

Poor little boy.
 
Cypress said:
Nicely played Frank Rich. This dude is rapidly becoming one of my favorite columnists.




Uh, yeah. While there's little doubt that Clinton supporters were crestfallen about their candidate losing, and occasionally angry (and sometimes justifiably so) about the sexist undertones of the media's portrayal of Clinton's campaign, and yet where the hell are all these angry women that are going to vote for McMaverick? Who the hell are these alleged angry liberal Democratic women who are supposedly going to vote for a dude who is totally 19th century on women's rights? I personally haven't met a Clinton supporter who's going to vote for McMaverick. I've met some who are bummed out; some who are disappointed ; some who are angry. Hell, I was disappointed and angry when Edwards bailed, and I bitched and moaned about the media treatment Edwards got. But, I wasn't accused of being some PMS'ing crazy, irrational floozie. Those clinton supporters will get over it. Or, at least 99% of them will. I'm ain't worried about it. Clinton set the tone for a gracious exit from the race, and a full throated endorsement of Obama. From what I could tell, Clinton's speech was far more explicit and powerful in support of Obama, than Bill Bradley's concession ever was for Gore in 2000, or Ronald Reagan's was towards Gerry Ford in 1976.



Frank, don't you get it? The media has a vested interest in twisting the poll numbers to make a narrative of a "women problem" for Obama, or to create the perception of a real horse race between Obama and the Fossil.



Again, nicely played Frank Rich. I'll pound half a bottle of tequila and eat the worm, if I ever met a Democratic Clinton partisan who is shouting from the roof tops they they are actually going to vote for Mr. Overturn-Roe-V.-Wade.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?em&ex=1213675200&en=a88f794b8a0b3058&ei=5087
Click to expand...

I thought that this was one of Rich's best ever. He really nailed the BS that comes out of the punditry.
 
Darla said:
So did Romney and Edwards and all of the major candidates. It's the only way they can continue to raise funds to pay off their campaign debts.

In other words;

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND SIT FUCK DOWN UNTIL YOU HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOUR USUAL FEAR OF MOMMY TO BASE YOUR ANSWERS ON.

Poor little boy.
Click to expand...

Shut your ignorant cunthole!:)
 
Cypress said:
Nicely played Frank Rich. This dude is rapidly becoming one of my favorite columnists.

Uh, yeah. While there's little doubt that Clinton supporters were crestfallen about their candidate losing, and occasionally angry (and sometimes justifiably so) about the sexist undertones of the media's portrayal of Clinton's campaign, and yet where the hell are all these angry women that are going to vote for McMaverick? Who the hell are these alleged angry liberal Democratic women who are supposedly going to vote for a dude who is totally 19th century on women's rights? I personally haven't met a Clinton supporter who's going to vote for McMaverick. I've met some who are bummed out; some who are disappointed ; some who are angry. Hell, I was disappointed and angry when Edwards bailed, and I bitched and moaned about the media treatment Edwards got. But, I wasn't accused of being some PMS'ing crazy, irrational floozie. Those clinton supporters will get over it. Or, at least 99% of them will. I'm ain't worried about it. Clinton set the tone for a gracious exit from the race, and a full throated endorsement of Obama. From what I could tell, Clinton's speech was far more explicit and powerful in support of Obama, than Bill Bradley's concession ever was for Gore in 2000, or Ronald Reagan's was towards Gerry Ford in 1976.



Frank, don't you get it? The media has a vested interest in twisting the poll numbers to make a narrative of a "women problem" for Obama, or to create the perception of a real horse race between Obama and the Fossil.



Again, nicely played Frank Rich. I'll pound half a bottle of tequila and eat the worm, if I ever met a Democratic Clinton partisan who is shouting from the roof tops they they are actually going to vote for Mr. Overturn-Roe-V.-Wade.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?em&ex=1213675200&en=a88f794b8a0b3058&ei=5087
Click to expand...

You made good points on what was said in the article.

I'm going to have to pay more attention to Frank Rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top