Just finished a conference call with three Virginia women who were Hillary supporters and who reject the notion that Sarah Palin should draw women’s support simply because she is a woman.
Terry Holland is a grassroots Democrat from Williamsburg. In her remarks, she said the announcement of Alaskan governor Sarah Palin for VP prompted her to finally volunteer on a campaign for the first time in her life. She did that last Saturday. Holland said she supported Hillary not because she was a woman but because of her stance on the issues. She said she was incensed that McCain thought he could put a woman on the ticket and automatically get the Hillary supporters.
Superdelegate Susan Swecker was also on the call. An early and vocal supporter of Hillary Clinton, Swecker said that she felt Hillary was the most qualified but that there are no differences between Clinton and Obama on the major issues. She said that she cast her vote at the convention for Obama. “Women’s support is not transferable, ” Swecker said.
The last speaker was Senator Mary Margaret Whipple. Characterizing herself as a “strong Hillary supporter,” Whipple said that she is supporting Obama enthusiastically. Whipple said that McCain “decided he had to do something unusual” to try to pull out this election in selecting the “unvetted” Palin. She said that Palin does not represent her values or her hopes for this nation.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Wow! Ideologues reject someone based on … you guessed it! … ideology. Color me surprised.
Of course, Hillary was depending upon the ignorance of the polis and the power of identity politics.
I guess Democrats’ real objection to Palin is that the wheel is turning.
“She said that Palin shoes not represent her values or her hopes for this nation.”
Shoes?
Are there no women who supported Sen. Clinton because of her sex?
Are there no Blacks who support Sen. Obama because of his race?
Of course the die-hard liberals will not vote for McCain because of Palin. However, I daresay there are females among the moderates who would have voted for Sen. Clinton, but who will now vote for McCain.
I never understood pundits even raising the possibility that HRC supporters would back Palin, at least not after her repressive views on choice became known. To suggesst that a woman who backed Hillary would back Palin just because she’s a woman is both sexist and insulting.
Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, a new poll shows McCain markedly ahead with white females. What is going on here? Is this an anomaly based on the newness of Palin and ignorance of her positions on abortion, guns, etc.? Are women determined to have executive representation with a women, even if they have to vote for a Republican and put aside their own political positions? Ladies?
My opinion…the discounting and dismissal of Hillary Clinton during the primaries could possibly cost us the election. She definitely speaks better and connects more to the electorate than Senator Obama (…he’s still sounding too much like John Kerry which foments the “elitist” characterization) I hope I’m wrong but, at the moment, the momentum seems to be with the Republicans. I really hope I am wrong.
“Are women determined to have executive representation with a women, even if they have to vote for a Republican and put aside their own political positions?”
That would indeed be a shame. I say that without sarcasm. Women should not vote for McCain-Palin just because Gov. Palin is female any more than Blacks should vote for Sen. Obama because he is Black. Voting for (or against) a candidate because of that candidate’s race or sex is ridiculous.
Policies, experience, and character are the leading criteria. I have supported people with whom I have policy differences over those with whom I agree, because those with whom I agreed did not have the experience or character for the position. I have donated to Gov. Gerry Brown. He is a flaming leftist, but he has always been an honest flaming leftists. I will probably vote for Warner over Gilmore, too. I have seen both of them as Governor of Virginia, and I trust Warner to do what he thinks is right in the face of opposition, even from his own party. I’d rather have a liberal I can trust than a conservative I cannot.
There is much women need to know about the danger of voting on the McCain and Palin ticket in November. Palin is fooling women into thinking that she is for them when she is actually going to take away several rights that they have spent years lobbying to obtain. If we have McCain and Palin, the Supreme Court will increasingly move towards the
right and destroy both civil rights and women’s rights.
Palin is a threat to our right to choose life vs. abortion. Under current laws, a women who becomes pregnant as a result of rape has the right to terminate the pregnancy. Under McCain and Palin, she will have no choice but to keep the baby and be reminded of this horrific event
every moment that she carries, delivers and raises the child. Obama does not advocate abortion. He simply advocates for women having the ability to make a choice. Wouldn’t most women want to have the ability to make a choice in this situation?
In addition, it is still possible in many cases to find out whether or
not a baby will be born with a serious birth defect and/or something that could
result in death within the first few years of life. If McCain and Palin are in leadership, women may have to give birth to a baby that would suffer and then die. What is the value in
inflicting this type of pain and suffering on a small child and its’
parents?
With regard to women’s rights, Palin’s policies favor of lower wages for women. Women in this country fought long and hard to be seen as equals in the work world. Why would we want to reverse this? Voting on the McCain and Palin ticket would surely reverse all that women have worked so hard to obtain.
Palin also opposes freedom of speech, she is against the environment and she is strongly in favor of people freely owning guns. For women who are afraid of another terrorist attack in this country, wouldn’t it be wiser to vote for a politician like Obama who favors
gun control?
If women vote on the McCain/Palin ticket, there is a high probability
that Palin will become our next president since actuarial figures from
insurance companies suggest that McCain probably won’t live to see his
second term and he has a history of malignant skin cancer.
Voting for Obama and Biden will secure women’s rights and civil rights for the
future!!! Voting for McCain and Palin will destroy women’s and civil rights. Please vote responsibly.
Give me a break. Do you relly think this woman will be granted enough power to abolish abortion. I am a moderate/ conservative, I dont agree with banning abortion – I am totally pro-choice, and I dont believe that abortion will ever be illegalized. I am sick and tired of the liberal left wing and their viscious attacks though. McCain and Palin will get my vote.
Wow — there’s a lot to counter there, RLM. Let’s get started, shall we?
First of all, Supreme Court appointees must be approved by the Senate. Even with a McCain victory, the Senate is unlikely to become Republican. Furthermore, assuming your fears are realized and the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade (as it should — the ruling is a classic case of faulty logic and legislating from the bench), that would not make abortion illegal, but merely send it back to the States.
I do find it curious that liberals support death for the children of rape, but not for rapists themselves. The sins of the father, eh?
“With regard to women’s rights, Palin’s policies favor of lower wages for women.”
And which policies would those be?
“Palin also opposes freedom of speech…”
Huh? Show me. It seems to me it’s the Democrats who support “speech codes,” the Democrats who want to shut down radio talk shows with the “Fairness Doctrine,” and Democrats who voted for McCain-Feingold.
“[She] is against the environment….”
How’s that, because she supports drilling in ANWAR?
“[She] is strongly in favor of people freely owning guns.”
What’s wrong with that?
“For women who are afraid of another terrorist attack in this country, wouldn’t it be wiser to vote for a politician like Obama who favors gun control?”
In a word, no. It would be wiser to be able to defend oneself. “God made men and women; Samuel Colt made them equal.” Still, it is rare for terrorists to use guns in attacks. They tend to use bombs. When they have used guns, it has been to take hostages, as in the school in Beslan. Have you ever wondered why Palestinian terrorists have not attacked a school in Israel? The teachers are armed.
“actuarial figures from
insurance companies suggest that McCain probably won’t live to see his
second term”
Based only on his being a white male, there is about a 15% chance of McCain’s dying in his first term, and a 32% chance of his dying before the end of his second term. However, he will have the best doctors in the world keeping tabs on him every day.
“Please vote responsibly.”
If Democrats had done that, they would not have nominated the most inexperienced candidate they had.
If Palin becomes the V.P. she PRESIDES in the senate and cast a vote in tie breakers. I for one do not think that she will do so in a measured and responsible way.
JRG
http://www.newsweek.com/id/86542
Cheney has cast one such vote.
I really wouldn’t worry about it so much. If the issue is one on which a Palin vote would cause you such grief, there is no way the Senate will be tied.
Is there somewhere specifically that states Palin’s views on the major issues? Thanks for your help.
Were none of these women Clinton supporters?
More of the SHAME! McCain is proving to be more than just more of the same, but also more of the Shame of Rove politics. I am not of the school that winning is everything. His current tactics of perverting the pig in lipstick comment (a phrase McCain has been documented as saying- and by the way, calling Hillary a B!@#$ during the primaries is much worse than what they are accusing Obama as having done), and the ad accusing Obama as wanting to teach Kindergartner’s sex ed are over the top. Why can’t Republicans tell the truth? Obama supported for legislation that would protect our children from sexual predators and molestation. But the Right turns that into something sordid. Perhaps there are two different Americas, and I do not want to live in theirs.
What about the joke Mccain told at a Republican Senate fund-raiser in Arizona in 1998:
“Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno.”
Chelsea was just eighteen years old at the time. Is this the kind of person we want running our country? Joking or not. To humiliate this young woman publicly, and Janet Reno for that matter, shows insensitivity to all women. He didn’t pick palin because he wants women to rise to the top. He didn’t pick her because of her experience, the repub’s have admitted that themselves. She is just a pawn in the “I just did you one up Democrats” game, and that is an insult to every woman. I am a Hillary voter who is voting for Obama.