Gorgon, an air-launched, air-breathing
guided missile of the 1940's
Posted on 11/10/2007 6:39:46 PM PST by Graybeard58
WASHINGTON — Even from a distance, you can tell it’s a Hillary Clinton campaign rally. It’s clear well before you see the bumper stickers on the cars or hear the speeches inside.
You can tell by the women, young and old, lined up early. Often outnumbering men by margins of 2 to 1, they come to see the first woman with a real chance of being a major party's nominee for president — and a real chance of being elected.
They talk about health care and the war. But they’re also drawn by an emotional, woman-to-woman bond summed up by one fan at an early Clinton rally in Iowa: “I feel it in the heart.”
Eight weeks before the voting starts, Clinton is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination. And the prospect of her taking it and the Oval Office from what she calls the “boys’ club” of presidential politics raises the question: Will Clinton’s gender help her, hurt her or make no difference?
One possibility: a new gender gap — with a surge of women, some of them Republican, voting for her on one side, and a bloc of men lying to pollsters about their readiness to vote for a female candidate, then voting against her in the privacy of the voting booth.
Even with some history as a guide — there was an increase of women voting for female Senate and House of Representatives candidates in 1992’s “year of the woman,” for example — the stakes are higher and the votes much more difficult to predict when the presidency is at stake.
“We have no benchmark. We have no way to know,” said Kathleen Dolan, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who’s written extensively on female candidates and voters.
So far, polls suggest that women are supporting Clinton more than her rivals.
In Iowa, the first state to vote next January, the New York senator now gets the support of 33 percent of women and 22.5 percent of men, according to a recent survey of likely Democratic caucus attendees by the University of Iowa.
Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois gets 26.5 percent of women and 26.7 percent of men. And former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina gets 16.8 percent of women and 25 percent of men.
Clinton aides think her support from women could grow in a general election against a male Republican candidate.
Women represent as much as 54 percent of the vote. Clinton pollster Mark Penn said recently that 94 percent of young women are more likely to vote if a woman is on the ballot. As many as 20 million unmarried women sat out the 2004 election.
“Even a 10 percent increase in turnout among women on top of the current polls would give Hillary a significant edge in a general election, opening up a wide number of states,” Penn said.
He also told reporters at a recent breakfast that the “emotional element” of a female president could draw as many as one out of four Republican women to vote for Clinton, a crossover that would give her a better shot at winning such swing states as Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio and Virginia.
Independent analysts also see some potential crossover appeal.
“There is a possibility that Clinton could attract moderate Republican and independent women,” said Dianne Bystrom, director of the Catt Center for Women and Politics at Iowa State University. “I’m not sure the numbers will be as high as Clinton thinks, but there could be some crossover.”
Some Republican women conceded that voting for a female presidential candidate is appealing, but said they thought Clinton had much less appeal than Penn predicted.
“The idea of a woman president in general is emotionally appealing,” said Karen Hanretty, an aide to former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, another presidential candidate. “But what do Republican women have in common with Hillary Clinton? I don’t think there would be a significant number of people who would vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman.”
There’s also the possibility of a backlash among female voters against male candidates who attack Clinton, even though attacks are normal in politics.
That happened in the 2000 New York Senate race, when Republican Rick Lazio walked across a debate stage to confront Clinton face to face. And it might have happened this fall, when her male rivals and two male moderators challenged her in a recent debate.
Clinton aides and supporters called it unfair, noting the lineup of men against a woman. That, however, could undermine the image Clinton has cultivated as a tough-as-nails, Margaret Thatcher-like leader for a nation at war.
Kate Michelman, a feminist leader who supports Edwards, accused Clinton of "trying to have it both ways."
"At one minute, the strong woman ready to lead; the next, she's the woman under attack, disingenuously playing the victim card," Michelman said. "It is not presidential."
Yet it did strike some women as an attack on a woman, not just on a presidential candidate.
“It’s not a free shot,” said Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin. “It’s not true that all of these women will take it as a neutral act, these kinds of attacks."
Yet for any gender advantage Clinton might have, there remains the question of how many Americans will vote for a woman.
Large majorities tell pollsters that they'd have no problem voting for a woman. But minority politicians have faced the same landscape, only to find that their support dropped on Election Day, with some people having voted differently than what they’d said.
“There is some piece of the population that will work exactly like that, people who will say I’m supporting her or will support a woman, and then will vote the other way,” said Dolan at the University of Wisconsin.
“That’s just one of the pieces that make this really hard. Until people get into the polling place, there’s no way to know how it’s going to play out.”
I’ve voted in the past based solely on gender.
Of course that was back when I use to vote Democrat too so obviously I didn’t use logic back then.
Out numbering the men 2 to 1.more like 20 to 1.There were no “men” at the rally.
That’s basically what several women have told me - even a very liberal minded woman. Their take on it is they like the idea of a woman candidate and eventually President. However, their universal reaction is “{diety} no! Not Hillary as the first!” They seem to think she’d set them back years, that it would be decades before the country would try that again.
Despite what the media tells you the most prejudiced voters in the USA are the Democratic base. A large portion of the base is made up of male hourly workers. They have no more than a High School education. They don't want a woman or a black boss and they do note vote for females or blacks for major public office.
The media and the power structure of the Democratic party holds far different views than most of the base. What you find when talking to most of the Democrat base is that they delegate control of their lives to the Democratic party. They believe that they can not understand government, but the Democratic party does, and the Democratic elites will look out for them.
Thus the Democrat big shots can refuse to open Alaska for oil and the base will vote for them. The Base doesn't understand that the Democrats refusal on new Drilling is a major cause of $3.15 gasoline. They don't even know that what their party did. They blame the big oil companies and Republicans for making gasoline cost so much.
The Democratic party base pays no attention to what the party leaders do. They just delegate control, that is their votes, to the party so the party elites can protect them form the evil Republicans.
But if the party puts a woman or a black on the presidential ticket, they will find that is far different thing than refusing to drill for oil. The base can not help bu know what has been done, and mutch of the Base will refuse to vote. They would not vote for a Republican but they may very well refuse to vote for a female or black candidate.
I suspect the polls will show Hillary in great shape until election day. Then they may find out that much of the parties base, has not turned out to vote. It may come as a huge surprise.
The Democratic party is a top down organization. You can bet the precinct captains know the score. But the Democratic elites do not listen to or even ask precinct captains. The elites send orders and rulings down. They never ask for or get information from the bottom up.
They will find out during the election 2008. It reminds me of 1972. The elites were sure that George McGovern could destroy Richard Nixon at the polls. But on election day 60.7 percent of the votes went to Nixon. As a comparison Reagan in his huge victory of 1984 only got about 58 percent of the vote. The Republican party is a bottom up party. The democrats are a top down. That explains the differences between the two parties.
You may have hit the nail on the head. It seems that seems that in contemporary liberal-left thought, how one perceives one's sexuality is more important that one's actual sex.
I spent more than 30 years as an “hourly male” and never in my life have voted for a democrat at any level of government. I was a union member, now retired. I knew many who fit the description you provided. Conservative on many levels, smaller gov., fewer entitlements, less taxes, pro life etc. and voted for democrats.
Recently a man I used to work with came by my house and we were having coffee. I know him to be one of the people I described above. I asked him if he would vote for Hillary or Obama in the primary. He told me that he did not vote for women or n******.
The democrat party is chock full of racists and misogynists. It’s projection on their part when they accuse conservatives of their moral failings.
Well put. I know of only one women among my woman friends who has said she will vote for Hillary because of the fact she is a woman. She isn't the brightest of my friends & we are not very happy about her vote. Its her choice though. We keep telling her if Hillary does get in we are going to blame her for all the bs that comes with that demon.
Boo hoo Hills, most thinking people are on to you. It’s the other idiots I’m worried about...
LOL!
Be very, very carefull when expressing/exposing ignorant misogynist tendencies on this forum.
Some “uppity female” might feel free to challenge your views.
Wouldn’t one have to know exactly which gender Her Heinous is?
Virtually all the liberal (sorry, “progressive”) women I know are dead set on Hillary. When I ask they why, none of them can come up with a single response.
Bill Clinton Denounces the Media for Rough Treatment of Wife [semi-satire]
Former president Bill Clinton denounced the media for what he labeled “their invasive, intrusive, and impolite harassment of his wife.” He was referring, he said, to the spate of questions raised following Hillary’s difficulty in
the Democratic debate last week.
“Candidates shouldn’t have to answer complicated questions and be expected to take definite policy positions prior to taking office,” Clinton asserted. “This could impede their flexibility once they are elected.” Clinton contended that this “loss of the element of surprise will make the nation
more vulnerable to its enemies—both foreign and domestic.”
“By taking a multi-faceted perspective on the issues, Hillary is showing that she sympathizes with people of all points of view,” Clinton continued. “I think this is the kind of inclusiveness we want in a president. It worked
for me. Hillary is just carrying on what she learned from observing me.”
Clinton recommended that “Voters should vote for the person they trust and leave the decisions on complicated issues to her good judgment.”
In related news, the former president also warned his wife’s rivals for the Democratic nomination to “watch what they say. If they keep piling on they might find themselves ‘swift-boated’ somewhere downstream of here.”
Presidential contender Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill) said he found “the implication that the Clintons may have been the unacknowledged force behind the campaign that derailed Senator Kerry’s 2004 run for the office stunning.
The surreptitious undermining of our own Party’s nominee goes beyond the normal bounds of give-and-take among honorable adversaries. I’d call it disreputable, maybe even sinister.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Is “Dyke” a gender?
Any mention of her in terms of "gender" hurts me...
Man, you just can't make this stuff up.
meow
She’s a man, baby!
me.......but only cause I don’t know how..........lmao2
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.