Does Barack Obama have a woman problem?

I wouldn’t have thought so—he’s married to a smart, strong, aggressive woman whom he clearly loves dearly (though I personally find her rather depressing); but I’m beginning to wonder. He’s certainly been rather inept in his handling of Hillary Clinton, managing to both cave in to her (and/or Bill) and to tick her off; sending the formal announcement of the Biden pick (even though it had already leaked) at 3 am was just over the top. Now people are starting to ask, “Why is Barack Obama so afraid of women?” I don’t believe he is, but with his campaign’s connection to the attempted political hit job on Sarah Palin coming right together with his treatment of Sen. Clinton, it does seem clear that he wants a monopoly on the identity politics in this campaign. He understands that “first black President” has a powerful pull, and that he can use that (and more power to him); in consequence, he doesn’t want that blurred or undermined by a woman in the race. He didn’t want to be upstaged (for which I don’t blame him), so he didn’t pick Hillary; equally, he doesn’t want to be competing in the general election against a woman on the GOP ticket, which would create crossing and conflicting claims in the identity-politics arena. After all, if the Democrats give you the chance to elect the first black man to the White House, and the Republicans give you the chance to elect the first woman (albeit just to the Blair House, the official residence of the VP), then you can make history either way. (And one would have to admit that between the two, the Republicans nominating a woman would be the bigger surprise.)In any case, I’m quite sure Sen. Obama has no problems with women—but it does seem like more and more women are wondering if he does. (Update: the latest numbers from Gallup show his support among women dropping, and especially among unmarried women, from 46% to 39%.) Some of that, again, is his treatment of Sen. Clinton, who hasn’t buried the hatchet—she’s doing her best to undermine him, even when she helps him; some is rooted in the behavior of many of his supporters, a problem Rebecca Traister wrote about in Salon a few months ago; some of it comes from who those supporters are, or at least the most visible ones. Stacy at Smart Girl Politics asks, “One last thought….have you ever noticed how many of John McCain’s spokespeople on the media rounds are women? Have you noticed how many top business women have lined up to support John McCain? How many prominent women can you name in the Obama campaign?” I’m not sure how widespread this sort of perception is, but Sen. Obama had better do something about it, or he’ll wind up seeing a lot more ads like this one:

Posted in Barack Obama, Politics, Sarah Palin, Uncategorized.

20 Comments

  1. Great Blog Rob. Obama absolutely has a “women” problem. As a republican woman, I happily invite all of his Clinton supporters to give us another look.

  2. Stacy,
    Head on over to McCain’s biographies, the amount of trouble he has had with women is far and away more bothersome both spiritually and politically. You can also do a search on why exactly he received a rare rebuke from the FCC. I hope you don’t mind me skipping the details, but it is my hope that you will look at the information and form your own conclusions without being sullied by my left-leaning ways. 🙂

    Rob.
    Sigh. Nancy Reagan is still a pill in the side of the Republican party as can Barbara Bush at times (though to a far lesser degree). So, problems with powerful women is not necessarily a Democrats only problem.

    With that stated, the Democrats have opened a LOT more doors for women with regards to POWERFUL positions within the political process than their Republican counterparts. As a direct result we have the first woman Speaker of the House, and dang near had the first woman to represent the party as our Presidential Nominee. We settled happily for Barack Obama, the first man of color.

    I think you fail to understand how exciting these two people have been to Americans. Dreams have been awakened. Passions are erupting everywhere. Irregardless of any other success, we can look upon this moment and know that we have inspired a whole new generation with hope, that irregardless of their color, gender or socioeconomic situation, that they too can believe in the American dream.
    No amount of Republican rhetoric that can take that away. The Democrats, for all of their issues, have done something amazing, and I am quite proud of them. And as Americans, feel free to stand up and cheer too. We all have something to be proud of.

    The downside to this wonderful process is that someone has to lose. And with that loss, the dreams staked to that person are also lost. That is a very hard pill to swallow for a great many people.
    Obama has gone out of his way to let that dream (dream of the first woman president) have a place on the podium with him. To the Republican pundits it looks as if we are confused, disorganized and content to snipe at one another. The frame of reference simply does not exist in the mindset of the Republicans to understand all of these passions. But Obama gets it, and has graciously allowed for that moment to be savored by all. Hillary will be given her opportunity to stand in the light and receive the love and admiration that she deserves. Kudos to Obama for understanding the dream, and wanting to share it.

    Republicans, you go on getting ready for your own convention. There are surely lots for you to do, but while the Republicans pop Viagra, host seminars on how to bypass the constitution, and practice saying, “drill, drill, drill”; we will be celebrating our time in history.

    The dream is alive, Democrats ’08.

  3. Rob,
    By the way, I am a HUGE fan of Barbara Bush. Her story about living with a prostitute still makes me chuckle.
    Both Papa and Mama Bush are extraordinary people, and I wish them a long and happy life.

    Wish they had whipped Jr. a few more times, but bah, thats for another discussion…. 🙂

  4. I think you misunderstood the point of this post–which in this case I can understand, since I couldn’t figure out exactly how I wanted to phrase it, so if it’s clear as Mississippi mud . . . yeah. The point is (to try to rephrase things) not that Obama has trouble with women (as I said, clearly, he doesn’t) but that he seems to have a developing problem among female voters. Don’t lecture me about “you fail to understand”–I’m talking about Hillary backers who are now planning on voting for McCain, and others who are asking if Obama has a problem with strong women. Again, I don’t see any reason to think that he does–but, and here’s the kicker, if people are asking the question, he’d better be looking for ways to make them answer it in the negative.

    As for McCain’s first marriage–no question. He owns that, and he’s never denied it. Anything else to which you may be alluding is slander.

  5. Slander is defined as stating something that isn’t true, something I haven’t even come close to doing. Unlike others who have stated something different, I keep referring to the rebuke and only the rebuke. That little tidbit is both interesting and telling to me, and it would be my hope that others would find it equally disturbing.

    As to disaffected Hillary backers heading over to McCain, well that certainly is a shame. I understand and respect their reasons, and wish them well. They will certainly be missed.

  6. I fail to see why you find the rebuke significant, since it didn’t allege that McCain had done anything improper or that he had taken the position he had on the basis of money received (as opposed to the other way around). And if you don’t mean to imply anything, you might take care not to pair a reference to that with an insinuation about McCain and women.

  7. I feel like we have swapped positions here where you are assuming more into the conversation than was put forth. I suggested a bit of research germane to the subject at hand. It was clearly stated that I would not put forth an opinion as not to sully those efforts.
    If I was going to insinuate that he took money for political influence, I would have added the Keating 5 scandal as something to research. But of course, I did not.
    The topic was problems with women, and both of the examples I gave were directly on point irregardless of your protestations.

  8. a) No, that isn’t the topic, except to the extent to which you’ve made it so.

    b) I know about the FCC rebuke, and consider it insignificant.

    c) Either you consider the FCC rebuke “on point” to the topic “problems with women,” or you don’t. If the first, you’re alluding to slanderous allegations (as, in fact, is any implication that he was guilty of wrongdoing in the case of Charles Keating). If not, then you shouldn’t have given the appearance of connecting them. I’m still not clear between the two.

    d) You haven’t actually given any examples at all of Sen. McCain’s alleged “problems with women.” Yes, he definitely did his first wife wrong–but I’m the one who mentioned that, and it’s something which he has long acknowledged and for which he has long accepted blame.

  9. And incidentally, none of your maneuvering to attempt to sully John McCain’s good name in any way addresses the actual point of this post: that Barack Obama appears to have a developing perception problem which he’d better address if he doesn’t want to lose a significant chunk of the Democratic base. You’re welcome to be blasé about “They will be missed,” but I’m quite certain that Sen. Obama is anything but blasé, because he knows exactly how much they’ll be missed: to the tune of losing the election, if he doesn’t do something about it soon. I’m typically pretty loose about keeping comments on topic, but between you, you and Ted are beginning to annoy me.

  10. Rob.
    LOL!
    I am glad that you have formed an opinion on the matter, but you weren’t the intended recipient of my suggestion. I, too, have formed an opinion on the matter, but why don’t we let “Stacy” and other Christian conservative women review the information for themselves?

    I know the Christian conservative women in my neighborhood are certainly smart enough, wise enough, and strong enough to ascertain their own opinion. It surprises me to see you in such a state of distress over the idea of people doing their own research. These people are smart, and can connect their own dots.

    As to the Keating Five scandal, you are quite right, it isn’t germane to McCain’s problems with women. I am not sure why we are discussing that issue as it was flippantly thrown out there as an example of insidious insinuation of fiscal impropriety. Which is absolutely not “on topic” here!

    There is an interesting interview with Senator Boxer (another woman causing the McCain camp some consternation) that you might want to research as well. Women problems seem to be popping out everywhere these days (sarcasm)!

    As a mental exercise, I wonder what kind of name McCain would have had if it wasn’t for his issues with anger and lust? I mean, if its a good name now, would you have said something like: “sully his GREAT name”? Nevertheless the litmus test that you use to judge a “good name” is obviously set at a thresh hold far lower than mine, but I suppose, to each is own.

    Good day to you.

  11. Rob,
    This is off topic for sure, but it is the only mechanism that I see for responding to your “off topic” comment.
    First of all, let me apologize for the off topic conversation about water. I published my comment literally two minutes before your comment here came through (4:14 vs 4:16). There was no intentional desire on my part to stir the pot with that post.
    As for going off topic, yes indeed it happens, and I will readily admit to gladly participating in that process (either as an instigator or as an enthusiastic supporter). I can even understand your frustration given some of the content directed toward you, but posting your opinion on the Internet while allowing people to respond would certainly seem inviting to possible disagreements, perhaps even strong disagreements? Combine this with linkage to a national news media, and I sit here wondering at your reaction. What exactly did you think was going to happen Rob?
    As an avid Blogger, let me assure you that the comments here are generally very tame, and while not always germane to the original post, there is a predictable flow in the stream of the discussion.
    If that aggravates you to excess, perhaps having an interactive blog isn’t the right solution for you? I am really not trying to be mean or condescending here, just want to make sure that you know that you can remove the ability to post.
    You can certainly claim that you don’t have a problem with posters, just two of us…. But based on the population of your posting community, that is a pretty large percentage. A number, that will probably remain consistent.
    Though, I would suggest as we get closer to the elections, the “aggravating” posts will become more pronounced. Heavens no, I would in no way have any hand in that, just a trend observation.

    Anyhow, I told you I would leave peacefully if asked. However, I will not censor myself to lessen your aggravation Rob. I am sorry that it bothers you, but again, my contention is that you kind of invited this yourself.

  12. Aggravation is not the point. Taking a post about Barack Obama’s perception problem among female voters (see the update in the main post) and turning it into a forum to beat up John McCain for his sins against women (both real and imagined, and you’ve been doing a fair bit of imagining) is off-topic, manipulative, discourteous, and all in all bad form. The idea is to address what the post is actually saying, not to try to seize it as an opportunity to talk about what you want to talk about. That’s what you have your own blog for.

    My irritation at Ted is of a different sort–one well known by FullosseousFlap and other pro-Palin bloggers whom he’s similarly been comment-bombing.

  13. Rob,
    I believe that the point of your post was that Obama through his actions and inactions were alienating a significant demographic, a demographic that had supported Hillary. There are other points, but this is the point I was addressing.
    My comments were meant to encapsulate two distinct issues I had with the post, the first dealt with the dissatisfaction in the Hillary camp, and how it could, in part, be the result of strong dreams being dashed when the Democrats selected a man of color over a woman. I went to great lengths to try and explain these passions.
    The second point, seemingly our contentious to date, had to do with the fact that McCain’s past acts might seem distasteful -at best- to a large swathe of Christian Conservative Women demographic (a powerful demographic in their own right).
    Stacy, has her own blog, which in my estimation, is representative of that demographic. Please tell me if I am off the mark, you know I have a reading comprehension problem (sorry, that was bitter, but this is getting ridiculous). So, providing her with research points and stating that, in my opinion, these represented a “problem with women” issue was smack dab on target. I was very careful NOT to provide any opinion other that I thought it to be an issue. Which, I have no doubts, now that you are reading this, must admit to being true or at least plausible.

    Before you start hacking at the quality of my posts, why don’t you reread yours? Half the innuendo that you accuse me of was initiated in your own posts. The Keating Five was a flippant remark, which was stated TWICE as an example of false innuendo (three times now). How about you take my comment at face value? Next time I will be more sensitive and make up an example if you promise not to accuse me of slander…. Ugh.
    You assume that I do NOT know the outcome of these cases, and thereby introduce them here as some sort of evidence. Here is another option to mull over, I knew that he had been cleared of the Keating 5 inquiry, so giving an example (remarked flippant no less) of it as innuendo would be received as just that – an example NOT INNUENDO. Again, ugh….

    In another post, I told a story I had read about SC primary in 2000…. Before you blast me over there, it was meant as an allegory AND I AM IN NO WAY CONDONING THE CONTENTS OF THE LIE. Let us be perfectly clear, using racist bias to get votes is DISGUSTING.

    Finally, I will post my thoughts on the two bullet points that I gave Stacy. Be ready to eat crow, because you got it wrong….

  14. Okay Rob,
    You have my permission to delete it once you have read it. I realize that the opinion is inflammatory, which is exactly why I did NOT want to share it.

    1) After waiting a good number of years for her husband while he interned in Vietnam (POW), Senator McCain’s first wife was involved in a debilitating car crash. So, when the Senator was finally release, himself also suffering, the reunion at home could be perceived as exceptionally emotional and terribly sad. Both had suffered terribly at the hands of fate.
    Unfortunately, with the fame thrust upon him, McCain found that he lacked the moral fiber to resist the temptations of the flesh now surrounding him. Senator McCain has gone on record and humbly admitted to these allegations stating that his multiple act of adultery against his first wife were indeed the cause of their divorce.
    As a Christian we must forgive him, but that doesn’t mean that his actions don’t deserve consequences. I am afraid that many in the Christian Coalition will find this weakness difficult to accept as a characteristic of their President. They still remember the accusations of another President, and are wary about potentially making the same mistake. Do you blame them?

    2) The FCC issued a rare public rebuke to John McCain. Here is an interesting link as to why:
    This one from Newsweek:
    http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/21/what-we-actually-know-about-mccain-and-iseman.aspx

    Others:
    http://mediamatters.org/items/200802210005
    http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/did_mccain_lean_on_fcc_commiss.php
    http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/22/paxson-contradicts-mccain-says-they-discussed-fcc-letters/

    Okay Rob, you decide if that was pertinent to the demographic I mentioned?
    Personally, I stand by my suggestions as being both germane and “on topic”.

  15. In the first place, “the demographic” is not the topic under discussion here, which is why I’ve been trying to tell you that you’re off-topic.

    In the second, as regards point 1): what you have to understand, and what most people who know his story do understand, is that John McCain has come a long, long way over his life. If you talk to folks in the Navy who knew him before his stay in the Hanoi Hilton–I have, many times–they’ll tell you he was one of the most arrogant, hotheaded, evil-tempered, vindictive, self-centered, abrasive, and all around nasty human beings they’ve ever come across. I’ve heard more than one say that his time as a POW was the best thing that ever happened to him. Even coming out, though, he had a lot of growing up to do, as the inexcusable episode with his first wife clearly shows.

    The key is, he’s a far different and far better person now than he was then–it was, iirc, only after he married Cindy and moved to Phoenix that he really began attending church in any serious way.

    In the third, and this is the last time for this: before you buy the hype on the Iseman story, you should look at all the facts. There’s actually no good reason to think that McCain did anything he wouldn’t have done if Iseman hadn’t been involved; there’s no reason whatsoever to think that he had any kind of inappropriate relationship with Iseman (and if he had, it would have leaked by now–just look at John Edwards); and for reasons that David Brooks pointed out, John Weaver is an untrustworthy witness. Check out my posts here and here–they don’t have all the links, but they have a number of them–and don’t believe the hype. You don’t see me going around declaring that Barack Obama is an agent of radical Islamists, do you? Believe me, if I wanted to, I could.

  16. First off, please dump these posts, or at least mine.
    I never wanted to share the dirt on McCain, but rather point out for that many Christian Women (which my wife is a particularly proud member) find that behavior inexcusable, even if it was over thirty years ago (almost forty).
    I do NOT believe that McCain had an affair with Iseman, and for that matter, never did. I do think she was able to cozy up to him, flatter his ego, and make him do her bidding. Not a lot mind you, but enough to make the staff uncomfortable.
    The rhetoric to discredit the story is fierce, but in my mind, he was probably guilty of a slip. Something that I found troubling to be sure.

    As for the claims that Obama is a radical by association with radicals (including several well publicized Christian radicals in his Chicago church), I had to laugh. Come on, the Republican Party has been cavorting with Christian radicals for decades. If the Grand Old Party is going start waving that flag, they must really be desperate for votes. That line will only bring in the Klu Klux Klan and other agents of hate and mistrust. Someone on that side of the fence must have some integrity left right?

    Here is a quip from me to you, feel free to quote (seems I have heard something similar before, so this may not be as original as I hoped)”if you bait your hook with manure, you can guarantee that manure will be on the hook when you reel it back in”. Hope it makes you laugh.

  17. Haven’t heard the line, but I’ll have to remember that–that’s good.

    McCain’s behavior thirty years ago was indeed inexcusable–which is why he never tries to excuse it. (We’ve all done inexcusable things. The question is, do we have a pattern of doing inexcusable things now?) Based on his pattern as a whole, there’s no reason to think that he was substantially influenced by Iseman–which is to say, that he was moved to take a position re: Paxson’s request that he would not have otherwise taken. The fact that Paxson thought he needed a lobbyist to help convince Sen. McCain doesn’t mean he was right.

    Also, since you seem to have missed my point (again): I’m not making any such claim regarding Odinga and al’Mansour. My point was, rather, that to do so is very much on the same level as the innuendo and implication that you’ve been offering with regard to Sen. McCain. I will note, though, that while Christian radicals do vote Republican, there has never been a major Republican national nominee with close ties to any of them (and if there had been, he would have gotten a far rougher ride from the national media than Sen. Obama has with Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Dohrn, Rezko, Meeks, Auchmi, et al.), so it’s not really parallel. Trust me, though, if we had had a serious Republican presidential candidate who was as closely tied to, say, R. J. Rushdoony (the founder of Reconstructionism, and thus an approximate parallel on the Right to Wright on the Left) as Sen. Obama has been to the Rev. Dr. Wright, I would have been campaigning against the guy as loudly as my little megaphone would permit.

  18. Oh, and no–I’m comfortable leaving your posts up, at this point, since to do otherwise would cause more disjunction than help; I just don’t want to continue around this merry-go-round any further.

Leave a Reply