by Guest Blogger, M.S.
To put it simply, Obama's camp just doesn't understand how to deal with this. I remember reading Dr. Deborah Tannen's book You Just Don't Understand, about differences in gender communication when I was in college 10 years ago. According to Tannen’s studies, women (and I have to lump myself into the "honorary woman" category here) tend to talk in a way that involves connecting with others. In other words, women tend to value empathy in conversation. Hearing that you understand each other is very important. Men tend to talk in a way that imparts knowledge, or in a “solution mode”, like "You should do this...". That may work well with other men, but it's often highly offensive to women because it completely ignores any hint of understanding what women are thinking and often shuts down communication. While there are lots of disagreements as to whether or not there are any communication differences between genders, in my own life I have felt this difference quite a bit in communicating with others and it's a part of the "lens" through which I am viewing the major rift in the Democratic Party today.
To tell women to ignore all of the blatant media and let’s really face it, Democratic Party sexism and misogyny this year and suck it up and join behind Obama is one of those "solution" male speaking modes that say "I don't give a damn about what this means to you and what you think. Now do as I tell you." And it's a heaping pile of bullshit.
To tell women that if you don't vote for Obama, Roe vs. Wade will disappear, is also when you look at history, another heaping pile of bullshit. After time periods with a Republican majority in all branches of government that didn't shut the door on Roe, this argument is crap. To tell gay people, like myself, that suddenly gay marriage will be a reality with a Democratic president, is also crap. Politicians want to get elected more than anything and in order to work hard at that they have to raise oodles of money. In order to do that, they often use hot button issues like gay marriage on the left and abortion on the right, to raise money from those constituents on the fringes of their bases. Think about it. If abortion disappeared, what major reason would fundamentalists have to fervently support Republicans? Gay marriage? Perhaps, but it doesn't faze them anywhere near what abortion does.
On the left, what real reason do gay people have to support Democrats if gay marriage and a few other issues became reality? They don't, really. Politicians don't want to "solve" these issues because it allows them to raise money and rally their bases.
This year's Hillary vs. Obama rift is much more complex than any perception there may have been about "Deaniacs" vs. Kerry supporters. Dean vs. Kerry was primarily about issues. And, as we all know, the differences were more nuanced than anything else. I tend to look beyond issues because when all is said and done, while a President sets a tone, Congress has to work out the details and ultimately, a President has to provide leadership when it comes to making decisions. What do we have to REALLY base our opinions on how someone makes decisions? Experience.
In 2003, one of the reasons I got on the Dean bandwagon was because he had experience as an executive - as a Governor, not just because of charisma or issues. This year was similar for me - with the big players all being senators, it came down primarily to experience and leadership. Hillary easily fit the mold. Obama had been a community organizer, had a few years in Illinois state government, where he voted "Present" hundreds of times on important issues where he clearly was not decisive, and then 3.5 years of being a US Senator. That doesn't hold up well to the experience question, which for me, is essential compared to anything else.
I'm not saying I've decided to vote for McCain, but after about 28 years of service in Congress and the US Senate with a distinguished career as an actual maverick - like bucking Reagan during his freshman term in Congress on military operations in Lebanon and later bucking most Republicans on Campaign Finance Reform, (not to mention his exemplary record of military service), he does pass the sniff test on leadership - like him or lump him.
Voting for McCain only as a means of revenge may not be the answer this year. But neither is rewarding the Obama campaign, the media, and Democratic Party by "following the leaders" and voting for Obama. At the age of 30, the party label means far less to me than being a patriot of this country does.
A few of us on a local listserv received a nasty message just prior to the Pennsylvania Primary from a representative of Democracy for Tennessee (which I am no longer a part of after all of this) telling us that we have no good reason for supporting Hillary and that her experience was primarily as a hostess of state dinners and that we shouldn't bother making any arguments to the contrary because we "can't". Gee, no sexism there, huh?
And of course, I haven't even touched the total hypocrisy of denying votes in Florida and Michigan, then giving some Clinton votes to Obama. I thought vote stealing was only for George Bush and the Republican Party. I thought the Democratic Party was the party of equal rights and democracy. THINK AGAIN.
When we are told what to do, that isn't "reasoning" to us. It is offensive and it just keeps digging the massive hole Obama's supporters have to get around in order to talk some of us back into the "fold". And what's that old saying? The first thing you should do when you find yourself digging a hole is to... stop digging.
Speaking for myself,
M.S.
matthewsmoxie@mac.com
Politics Hillary Clinton Gender News Barack Obama Democratic Primary Roe v. Wade Gay Marriage
