by Our Frozen Correspondent

Even as I predicted an Obama win, and a Clinton third-place showing, I was sitting in the middle of the surprise trend – women like my aunt and cousin who decided at last to vote for a woman. And I failed to see it. The clues were there – my own family, the fact that the crowd at the Hillary speech was mostly women, the moms who had brought their daughters to see her, the daughters who had brought their mothers.

So, farewell to the Obama buzz, welcome to the new buzz – the women’s vote.


About the Author

Gilbert is the pseudonym of a hard-bitten, hard-drinking, long-time Takoma Park resident who maintains the granolapark blog. Gilbert and William L. Brown — Granola Park's mild-mannered chief of staff, researcher, and drink pourer — have never been seen in the same place at the same time.

2 Comments on "Wimmin!"

  1. Tom Gagliardo | January 9, 2008 at 11:45 am |

    First, let me disclose my support for John Edwards in 2004 and now.
    Second, let me posit that one is not a feminist because one votes for a woman candidate, nor is one not a feminist for voting for a man rather than a woman. See British election of Margaret Thatcher.
    Third, I think Hillary Rodham Clinton is more than intelligent, capable and experienced enough to be president, but . . . . I did not like Bill Clinton and don’t like Hillary Clinton for the same reason. They are poll-driven centrists looking right. In reality, only centrists get elected president, I want one who looks left.
    Fourth, Bill and Hillary are leaders of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. See record on NAFTA, etc. They see economic prosperity as a booming Wall Street. See Ronald Reagan and “trickle down” economics. Edwards and others define economic success as well-being for the average American. See Edwards position paper on predatory mortgage lenders and credit card companies.
    Fifth, Barak Obama,not Clinton or Edwards can reinvigorate the political process by attracting many people who usually don’t vote. And he can enthuse others. See John F. Kennedy.
    Sixth, a president who wins narrowly can do no more than what we have witnessed for the last period of time. If Obama can “sweep” into office he can move an agenda that others can’t. See Ronald Reagan or Lyndon Johnson.
    Seventh, a personal note: by February 12 when we vote in Maryland I may vote for Obama because Edwards will be out of the running. And I don’t want the corporate wing of the Democratic Party back in power.
    Finally, a question: Is Hillary more like Al Wynn or Donna Edwards?

  2. Your Frozen Correspondent’s Clinton-voting cousin here, with a little clarification on point #2 as it relates to me, and, I think, to my mother.
    Agreed, entirely, on Margaret Thatcher, and on what does and does not make one a feminist.
    If you do not like Hillary, than the feminist thing to do would be to not vote for her. But I have disagreements with all of the candidates, and also like them all pretty well. And I have been saying for a while now that, for my ideals and ideas of a presidency, any of the Democrats would do.
    And if that’s true, now that I am for the first time in my life offered a smart, competent woman candidate, who I like as well as the rest, I am going to take the opportunity to make history.
    It’s not a perfect logic, certainly. But I am not the only one (at least up here) who’s using it.

Comments are closed.