Posts Tagged ‘Obama’
MESSAGE TO OBAMA PART 2: CHANGE YOUR VIEW TO “OBAMA FOR WOMEN”
In the first post on “Message to Obama: Change Your View to Obama for Women“, I made clear that I’ll vote for Obama, but the fervor with which I and many other women work for his election will be determined by his actions going forward. As one former Clinton activist said, “women aren’t marginal; we’re the key”. John Kerry took women’s votes for granted, and won only 51% of women’s votes in 2004. That’s several points too low to create a gender gap capable of propelling any Democratic presidential candidate to victory.
Since I wrote that post, Obama’s tidy double digit lead over John McCain evaporated to a measly 3%, a statistical dead heat. This shift was brought about in no small part by Obama’s clumsy attempts to tack to the presumed center on core issues like wiretapping and abortion ostensibly to broaden his base, but instead turning off the passionately progressive grassroots groundswell that brought him to where he is. And remember–Republicans vote for their candidate come hell or high water while Democrats argue the issues, and that’s how we all too often lose elections.
Read MoreWHY I’M NOT WRITING THAT CHECK TO OBAMA TODAY
Explanatory note: While the debate continues over at my previous post about Obama for Women, and I still wouldn’t vote for McCain under any circumstance, I’ve had to take a step back as I realized just how seriously damaging Obama’s comments about abortion and sex education could be. This situation is all the more reason he must give the sexism speech as I have suggested. He needs to do more than merely “clarify” his position on these issues; he needs to take a much bigger look at his own thinking about women’s rights and rightful place in the world. Here goes:
I was planning to attend Barack Obama’s big fundraising reception in New York Wednesday night and make the maximum contribution to his campaign, but I have torn up the invitation.
My decision isn’t about the money, though the thought of writing a check for $4600 takes my breath away. It seemed that important to do my part to prevent the 100% anti-choice John McCain’s election and a de facto third Bush term.
I supported Hillary Clinton in the primary because I believe she’s the most capable of meeting the enormous challenges the next president will face undoing the damage to women’s rights, health, and justice caused by Bush. Still, I’ve admired Obama since I met him at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Later, in Washington after he was elected to the Senate, I sensed he was genuine in his commitment to women’s equality. So, despite my still-raw feelings about Hillary’s concession, I was prepared to go forward this week and commit full support to Obama.
Then the danger signals started.
Read MoreReality Checking Ignorance Only Education
If the excellent website RH Reality Check isn’t on your bookmark or Google Reader list, it should be. Every day it brings me up to date on the good news, bad news, and interesting takes people are talking about concerning the big picture of reproductive health, rights, and justice. Not to mention handy information about things like how to knit a condom amulet, which would be much more useful than the abstinence only (non) sex (non) education that has been promoted by the (non) religious (non) right for the past decade or two.
Today, there’s Scott Swenson’s report on the encouraging trend by states to turn down funding for the now-discredited Federal abstinence only program, which never made any sense. I mean, ignorance has never really been bliss. That’s especially so when silence about sexual health and decision making is exacerbated by inaccurate teaching concerning the consequences of not just saying “no”, while failing to tell young people what “yes” means. Here’s Scott’s summary:
The Associated Press is just out with a major story about how in tough economic times, cash-strapped states are refusing federal tax dollars for abstinence-only programs. The story is one more in a long line of damning pieces of evidence about the failures of abstinence-only programs, the waste of tax dollars they represent, and should be a wake up call to Congress.
AP reporter Kevin Freking writes:
Read More
SATURDAY EVENING REPLIES TO YOUR COMMENTS
As my daddy used to say, “That’s what makes horse races.”
The many and multi-textured responses with varied opinions I received to my comments in the AP story last week which I link to in “Saturday Morning Coffee Questions on Women and Voting Power” below came via e-mail rather than on this site and warrant a post of their own. (Note to readers—I always love to hear from you, but I would appreciate your posting comments here on Heartfelt so other readers can have the benefit of them too.) Excerpts from two e-mails that especially touched me are below; I’ll introduce each one and share my reactions.
First from Lakeisha, whose depth of feeling about Obama’s candidacy is so compelling, it brought me to tears:
Read MoreThe Biggest Winners in Indiana Don’t Even Live There
[/caption]
I just guest-posted this commentary on PunditMom‘s “Mothers of Intention” column. Much will be said about last night’s primaries, but I always try to follow hockey star Wayne Gretsky’s advice, something like: “I don’t skate toward where the hockey puck is. I skate toward where the hockey puck is going to be.”
Sometimes when you win, you lose.
That’s the lesson of the Indiana primary.
Read MoreOBAMA IS RIGHT: WORDS MATTER WHEN YOU WANT YOUR OPPONENT TO LEAVE THE RACE
AOL News reports this:
Despite calls for his rival to drop out of their tight race for the Democratic nomination, Barack Obama said Saturday, “My attitude is that Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants.”
Note the tepid and dismissive “Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants.” In one carefully chosen short phrase, Barack Obama uses a verb form that bestows his permission, as if she needs it, while at the same time subtly belittling her because she is staying in the race. Both of these rhetorical techniques aim to diminish one’s opponent while seeming to be gallant and awarding oneself the cloak of the putative front runner who can afford to be generous.
But is he the front runner?
Read MoreWILL THE GENERATIONS OF WOMEN COME TOGETHER IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION?
Continuing the intergenerational conversation among women I jumped into on this blog below in “What’s That About a Sisterhood Split?“, two young writers who have already distinguished themselves as influential feminist thinkers, Courtney Martin and Deborah Siegel, have penned an op ed published in the Washington Post today. It’s entitled “Come Together? Yes We Can”, and definitely worth a read. Not just your “can’t we all get along?” plea, but rather a look at the generational divide revealed by the Democratic primary competition. An excerpt:
Read MoreWHAT’S THAT ABOUT A SISTERHOOD SPLIT?
In The Nation today, Jessica Valenti had an article called “The Sisterhood Split”. Much has been written about feminists dividing their votes between Clinton and Obama. Jessica, a fabulous young feminist and a founder of one of my favorite blogs, Feministing, made interesting points and certainly her passion for finding better ways to advance feminism and a feminist agenda shines through. But there were several statements in her piece that I thought begged for a response, especially since she quoted me in one of them. I’m sending my thoughts to Jessica also in hopes that we can dialogue more about this.
I didn’t have time to critique the entire article. What follows are excerpts (“J”) and my replies (“G”). Particular phrases of concern are in italics:
J: Gloria Feldt, former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, penned a piece for The Huffington Post [NOTE: also posted here on Heartfeldt] in which she warned women they would be missing out on a historic moment if they didn’t vote for Clinton . “Will women give this Moment away freely once again?” she pondered…
G: Actually, I warned about missing a strategic opportunity to achieve important feminist goals (electing a woman president, amassing political clout so we can influence the agenda) if we fail to mass the potential strength of women’s votes. To be sure, I gave historical precedents as examples, but personally I don’t give a fig about enshrining history; I just try to mine it for what it can teach us. And I stand by my warning, based on what I learned from several decades as an advocate from the lowliest grassroots to the highest halls of power.
Read MoreWHY WOMEN NEED TO LEARN HISTORY’S ELECTION POWER LESSON
Like many women who identify themselves as feminists, Kathleen Turner and I are divided in our presidential candidate pick. We spent 18 months collaborating on her just-released memoir, Send Yourself Roses: Thoughts on My Life, Love, and Leading Roles.
During that time, we talked about politics quite a bit, because she sees herself as an activist as well as an actor. I rolled my eyes last summer when she announced to me that she’d decided to support Barack Obama and was going stumping for him in North Carolina’s August heat.
I thought it a naïve choice, but Obama had the good sense to invite her to a meeting with a few prominent women and had asked directly for her support. She’d been impressed, as I was when I first met him soon after his 2004 election to the U.S. Senate. And like many people, I was thrilled that the Democratic candidate lineup looked more like America, whereas Republicans were still mired in cookie-cutter white male political hegemony. Nevertheless, it seemed at the time that Hillary Clinton was surging to an unassailable lead for her party’s nomination, so I didn’t need to press too hard on Kathleen to join me in supporting her.
REALITY SHIFTS AND “TRUTH” WITH IT
Read MoreHOPE IS STILL NOT A METHOD
Americans seem to like the message of hope better than we like the message of experience these days. But you know, there used to be a popular sex education film called “Hope is not a Method.” And that’s true about running a country too.
Can anybody deny that Hillary Clinton, who speaks of experience and from experience, is judged more harshly than Barack Obama who speaks of hope? There are so many examples trivial and profound but here’s a trivial one that is symbolic of all of them: I noticed that in the New York Times today, there was an effusive compliment for Michelle’s “athletic build”. In the photo you see she has large thighs.
Now, Hillary’s large ankles have been excoriated in the most vicious manner more political pundits than MSNBC can shake a stick at.
What’s the difference? It’s simply that Barack Obama and everything about him, including his wife, represent the new new thing. Further, he lives in a cloud of good will because he has not had time or inclination to make enough tough decisions that would cause him to make enemies. Even though he’s from Chicago, my sense of him is that he hasn’t a clue what he’s in for during a general election and then governing. Hillary unquestionably does.
Read More