The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Gov. Ann Endorses Obama

Thoughts From a Hillary Supporter Who Might Go for McCain

Just received this e-mail from a friend, a Washington lawyer who is a lifelong Democrat and a generous donor to the party. She supported Hillary in the primary and is undecided about what she'll do in November:

I just read your XX column, and I wanted to share a couple thoughts. Even though Hillary characterized her campaign as a big feminist movement in her exit speech, I'm not sure all her supporters saw it that way. I also think the risk of defection to McCain is very real, and not limited to uneducated, working class types. Just in my office, I know 6-7 women, all lifelong Democrats from VA who are now planning to vote for McCain. They are all highly educated people who follow politics closely, and a couple even worked for Dems on the Hill at one point or another. The decision to defect to McCain has nothing to do with Hillary as a woman or Obama's personality. They like Obama enough as a person, but they think he's an empty suit—rhetoric with little record behind it. Even if they agree more with Obama's positions, it seems risky to put such an inexperienced person in the White House—especially after what happened last time. I think the media misses this. It is not all about feminism. 

Having said that, I know there is a bit of truth to the feminist argument. I also know a strong, pro-choice Democrat from Maryland—someone who regularly hosts NARAL dinners—who is defecting to McCain, even though she understands his views on abortion. I doubt if this woman ever even voted for any Republican before in her whole life, and she just contributed to McCain's campaign. Truly amazing! I think Obama will have a real problem in the Electoral College if he does not find a way to reach out to the people who voted against him—for whatever reason. For now, I'm undecided and I'm planning on staying that way for a while. My big issue is the economy and both Obama and McCain are weak in that area, so it probably doesn't matter much.

I answered her that the experience issue doesn't resonate with me, especially as Cheney and Rummy had been around since the last ice age, and where did that get us? Hillary has been in the Senate only four years longer than Obama: big whoop. If you count his time in the Illinois Senate, he's actually had more experience as an elected official. (And while of course her experience as first lady counts for something, would we give Laura Bush full credit for those years—even though, as she belatedly tells us, she, too, had a big policy role all along?) The whole experience question just feels like a stand-in for race, or maybe something else I'm missing. Because when someone says they would slit their wrist before voting for Obama, that is NOT about Clinton having been in the Senate longer.

And here's my friend's response, which shows that hurt feelings cut both ways during the primary season, and opened some wounds that Obama must now work hard to help heal:

I think her years as first lady count for something, but regardless, she has a much better command of the issues. He was a back-bencher in the state senate, not committee chair, etc. ... He improved during the debates, but even at the end he was flubbing basic tax, economic, and foreign policy issues. Maybe I've been dealing with those issues for too long, but honestly, he is constantly struggling for answers and contradicting himself. I think it would help if he gave voters a sense of who he would appoint to his Cabinet. If he is just going to be an inspirational figurehead, I'd like to know who's going to be advising him. ... Bottom line—the divisions here are very, very deep for all sorts of reasons, and Obama has got to find a way to reach out. Many people are hurt by all the name calling in the campaign. [My son] was repeatedly called a racist at school for supporting Hillary, and I know they have had to address similar issues in [a private school in Washington]. I've heard that some African-American women who supported Hillary were subjected to threats and taunting. Of course, it's not Obama making those comments, and people need to realize that there is a downside to all that young voter passion, but it does not make you want to switch to the other team. Five years ago, I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat because I've always liked him. He's definitely sold out to the right in those five years, though, and that's what gives me pause.'

That she's even thinking McCain should give her party pause, too.

NOW's Hissy Fit

Oh my dear Emily, I just read that NOW letter about how Ted Kennedy has supposedly betrayed all women everywhere by endorsing Barack Obama—and I have not seen that many exclamation marks since I read Donna Hanover's book about how great it is being the ex-Mrs. Rudy Guiliani. (In brief, it is great!) Even though Politico's Ben Smith double-checked with NOW to make sure this missile was for real, it's still hard to believe it isn't a prank, of the sort pulled by those guys who yelled, "Iron my shirts!'' at Hillary a couple of weeks ago. (Seems like longer, though, doesn't it?)

This is such an old-fashioned hissy fit, I would not be surprised to wake up tomorrow and read that the sender had gotten up off her fainting couch and apologized: "Silly moi, lost my head there for a minute, on account of PMS. Or not.'' Because it only underscores Kennedy's point about how important it is to "close the book on the old politics of race against race, gender against gender, ethnic group against ethnic group, and straight against gay.'' And Obama's point that the old politics -- interest-group politics -- will not go quietly. Obama's position on abortion rights is identical to Clinton's, so is the fact that Kennedy has endorsed a man really the outrage here? Or is it that somebody thinks their power base in the Democratic Party is being threatened?  

Puff This ...

Were you just being provocative, Emily? Describing a best-case abortion as nothing more than "a few not ideal hours'' makes it sound like an afternoon at the DMV without a good book. And aren't you being just as categorical as you say Caitlin Flanagan is when you argue that giving a child up for adoption is definitely trickier than having an abortion? (Except when it's not?) Whether you think abortion is morally neutral, intrinsically evil, or the gray area that hijacked our whole political debate, though, here's what I wish we could agree on: There is no other-than-partisan purpose in lobbies on both sides of this issue raising huge sums that only stoke the argument, like some hideous perpetual flame. And despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, it's the fight itself that keeps us from focusing on the widely agreed-upon need for birth control, birth control, for heaven's sake birth control.

That Erica Jong post on girl-written puff pieces that Dahlia mentioned made me laugh, though; first, why shouldn't we have enough confidence to cop to an interest in not only Iraq and the Darfur and the dollar, but also shoes and Carla Bruni and poor, poor Katie Holmes? (Today's shiniest news bauble: The man Princess Diana considered the love of her life has, as the Daily Mail put it, "run to fat.'' In his first-ever, "world exclusive'' interview Pakistani doctor Hasnat Khan, reveals ... lots less than the photo of him does. "I found her a very normal person. ... I think she did great work for the country. ... I always wanted to follow in the footsteps of my maternal grandfather, who was a doctor.'')  If women really were the lead dogs on the newshound puff patrol, however, we'd completely dominate daily journalism at this point, because we are all style reporters now. There's no mystery about why that might be; as news outfits cut staff to boost stock—and are expected to magically do More with Less—it's way cheaper to provide commentary than reporting. And though women are still overrepresented on the boo-hoo brigades sent out to gather quotes from grieving families, I think I mostly differ with Jong on what the meaning of "puff'' is.

She complains that we delve into such "idiotic'' and trivial matters as a political candidate's marriage—but then also charges that we "never discuss psychological depth because hey, who cares if the president's a bomb-happy dry-drunk trying to play out an Oedipal war with his father?'' I write a lot about political marriages, so I guess her puff pastry is my meat and potatoes. But isn't looking at a candidate's closest relationships how we find out about bomb-happy dry drunks trying to play out Oedipal wars? Not a whole lot of that sort of thing comes of just-the-facts coverage of position papers. Doubtless we can do a better job of covering the issues, even in our current pared-down state. As can any readers who feel deprived of substance.

Hillary and Choice

Emily, I think you are right that Hillary uses the language of “choice” in a really fascinating way. When I covered her Senate race against Rick Lazio in 2000, I was immediately struck by the way she used that word to explain everything from her position on abortion to her decisions about parenting, her marriage, religion, and policy preferences. I think it was one of the central features of her rhetoric then, and it still offers a rather amazing contrast to the language of the Nancy Pelosi's and Laura Bush’s – who tend to say they were chosen for public service but not that it was their own choice.