It seems fairly clear to me that Obama is not the best candidate for women’s and LGBTIQ rights. He’s gaffed several times.

Can I just say that this really depends on what you regard as the most important women’s rights issues? Because imho Iraq is one of the most vital women’s rights issues in US politics, and that’s one of the reasons I support Obama rather than Clinton.

If you don’t like the statistical compare and contrast of broad demographic groups, then I share much of your view, though I’d add that during election season, it’s simply very useful at times. I realize that the way demographic groups are divided, which is often somewhat arbitrary, can be subject to a form of gerrymandering to support whatever narrative people want, and that we’re all stupider for “security moms” having ever entered our lexicon. But even in the local elections I’ve worked in, it’s impossible to view every voter as an individual. Some broad strokes must be painted.

There are a number of women — not all of them white or straight or “old” — who disagree with your assertion that Obama needs not court them, or stop saying misogynist things, or stop saying obnoxious things about homosexuals. Including me, even though I would vote for Obama if my primary were today (it was Super Tuesday, and I voted for Edwards).

If you want to see the arguments more specifically, I suggest you go to Shakesville (for example) and read the archives.

I can’t see the Democrats coming out on top from something like that.

But, how would you suggest this be phrased — should they be saying he needs to make nice to “white women?” Because my guess is that if they phrased it that way, all sorts of people would be pissed at the racism in that. Or, do the [white] women he has (and will) harmed not matter?

Saying that he needs to make nice to “women” is even more inaccurate. Plenty of women support Obama just fine. Black women, young women, women in every state west of the Mississippi, activist women, netroots women. He also has very vocal women allies in the party and among the punditry, such as Sen. Mccaskill and Rachel Maddow.

The most accurate phrasing is that he needs to make nice with older white women - but then again, he needs to make nice to older white voters in general, so I don’t see the need to bring gender into the mix.

Eliza, “white women?” would be a good rephrasingbecause then people would get pissed at the racism in that, which is absoultely the same as the racism in what Ellen Goodman is saying, just stated a lot more clearly and honestly. Pissing people off is not a bad thing, is it, if it is something they should be pissed at.

Could you please explain this more — I’d like to get clarification to make sure I’m not completely misunderstanding you.

Eliza, “white women?” would be a good rephrasingbecause then people would get pissed at the racism in that, which is absoultely the same as the racism in what Ellen Goodman is saying, just stated a lot more clearly and honestly. Pissing people off is not a bad thing, is it, if it is something they should be pissed at.

Middle america wasn’t willing to vote for a jew vp 8 years ago. Whoever gets the democratic nomination already has a mountain of crap to overcome. I agree with #18: a white, protestant, baby boomer, southerner with a military background.

I do think a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would be a bad idea. As much as I hate the ambient sexism and racism in America, it’s no good pretending it’s not there. We’ll need an older white male (preferably from the south with a military background) to get the public as a whole to swallow either pill. I wish it weren’t so — it’s the old dilemma between trying to create what should be or dealing with what is.

Since that time, I’ve shown it to several Obama supporters, who all found it just as funny.

The contexts I saw it in did not present it as a friendly parody.

I will gladly support either candidate over John McCain. I prefer Obama because his plan deals with people with disabilities a lot more realistically than Hillary Clinton’s does (in that he actually acknowledges that we exist). I am entirely for gender and racial equality, but without some help for my disability, I die. So I’m going for the best plan for that.

I just find it a bit chilling to read stuff like this from people who are supposed to be anti-racists, and who were cheerfully willing to support Clinton despite her racism, but not Obama because of his sexism.

I actually fell off my seat laughing at that — and it was shown to me by an avid Obama supporter, who was, herself laughing too hard to even do anything more than point. Since that time, I’ve shown it to several Obama supporters, who all found it just as funny.

They each have won about 50% of actual ballots cast, so why not recognize that with a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket?

And, mandolin, I feel you, but neither candidate floated my boat.

Eh, I don’t love either of them particularly either. I liked Edwards (continued grumble at the fact he’s not in the race).

I just find it a bit chilling to read stuff like this from people who are supposed to be anti-racists, and who were cheerfully willing to support Clinton despite her racism, but not Obama because of his sexism.

And yeah, in this particular post, my intent was to criticize the Clinton camp more heavily than the Obama camp,, although I tried to keep my language even. I’m sure that’s at least partially because Obama appears to have the advantage, so there’s more reason for Clinton supporters to be talking about what will be dealbreakers for them right now.

No lie. This one will not die. Just the other day Ellen Goodman had a piece on how Obama needed to make nice to “women”, as in all women, to make up for the hurts of the primary campaign, conveniently missing that plenty of women are plenty happy with him already - just not the kind of women Ellen Goodman - Ivy League, Boston Globe Ellen Goodman - sees as peers.

OK, I can understand this. But, how would you suggest this be phrased — should they be saying he needs to make nice to “white women?” Because my guess is that if they phrased it that way, all sorts of people would be pissed at the racism in that. Or, do the [white] women he has (and will) harmed not matter?

Original Lee Writes:
May 20th, 2008 at 11:13 am

…
We really deserve more than 2 viable political parties in this country.

THANK YOU!! I’ve been saying this for almost a decade (admittedly in Poli Sci classes and family gatherings) and I’m glad I’m not alone. I even tried the Green Party for a minute. We need more parties to represent the diverse needs of our society!

And, mandolin, I feel you, but neither candidate floated my boat. I actually made myself an independent rather than continue to tie into the Dems after the state convention I worked earlier. Nobody is truly speaking to me or my needs.

Not until she repudiates DADT and DOMA, she isn’t better on LGB issues even. As for Obama, since he will always get attacked over Rev. Wright, let’s see where Wright stands on LGBT issues - he was preaching against homphobia in the Black community long ago, long before it became fashionable or even and issue to other people.

“I guess it depends on how you define “women”.

No lie. This one will not die. Just the other day Ellen Goodman had a piece on how Obama needed to make nice to “women”, as in all women, to make up for the hurts of the primary campaign, conveniently missing that plenty of women are plenty happy with him already - just not the kind of women Ellen Goodman - Ivy League, Boston Globe Ellen Goodman - sees as peers.

I would have said queer to indicate all of the above, plus other non-comforming sexualities and gender identities, but I’m not sure whether or not that use is accpeted outside of the circle of people I went to college with.

I would argue there is benefit to trans- and intersexed people from progress on gay rights, but your point on Clinton’s transphobia is taken.

It seems fairly clear to me that Obama is not the best candidate for women’s and LGBTIQ rights. He’s gaffed several times.

I guess it depends on how you define “women”. There’s a lot of issues in his platform that DO address issues impacting women. I don’t think it’s so cut and dry with who’s the best candidate (or referred to as not being the best, b/c I’m not sure Clinton is necessarily the best candidate for women either) for women because of the same intersections that you mentioned in your post.

I’m not voting Democrat b/c I am not convinced that this party serves women best except when it’s not taking the women’s vote for granted.