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

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.

The NYT and the Washington Post get their hair done

On Sunday, the front pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post went to the hair salon. Because this is where black women hang out--in particular, black women who vote in South Carolina. As both papers tell us once they've gotten past the scene setting, African American women make up 29 percent of the state's Democratic primary voters. Which makes them "a crucial constituency" in this early primary state (NYT). "Seriously, we have to go where the voters are." (WaPo, quoting Clinton's state director).

There's nothing wrong with this, exactly--cliches are cliches because they have some truth to them. So is it just the double coverage that makes the pieces seem sudsy? To be sure, there's a serious and sad theme in both of them: Black women are reluctant to support Obama because they doubt that a black man could become president, and because they fear for his safety if he were to be elected. That may help explain why Hillary is polling ahead of Obama among black women, at least according to the Washington Post. (The Post article, by Krissa Williams, cites a recent Post-ABC poll showing black women supporting Clinton over Obama 54 percent to 35 percent. The Times article, by Katherine Seelye, cites a poly sci professor who says that black women are equally divided between the two, and that a third are still undecided. My conclusion: It's early yet, the numbers are shifting around, and no one really knows.)

Here's what bothers me, even though it seems inevitable: In both articles, the central question is whether black women will vote their gender or their race. As Williams puts it explicitly, "Do you identify with Obama because he's black or Clinton because she's a woman?" This framing I find depressing. I know, I know, race and gender matter in politics. And I also know that this is the first presidential election in which a woman and a black man have a real crack at winning the nomination. And yet it irks me that no one is going to head over to the cliche place in South Carolina where white men hang out (the gym? Home Depot? a NASCAR race?) and ask them whether they're voting for Clinton because she's white or Obama because he's a man. The essentializing only applies selectively.

 Or maybe it's all about the thrill of hot irons and hair weaves.