Ladies' Choice

by Dana Goldstein - December 26th, 2007 - The New Republic

For Barack Obama, it has all come down to the mommies.

Hillary Clinton's commanding lead among Democratic women--as high as 20 points in some nationwide polls--has long been cited as a strength Obama can't overcome. A November Zogby poll found that nationwide, Clinton's 11 percent advantage over Obama was due entirely to her 18 percent lead among women.

But in recent weeks, Obama brought female voters into his column as he pulled even with Clinton in the early primary states. The Des Moines Register's December 1 Iowa poll showed Obama not only winning the overall race by a narrow margin, but for the first time beating Clinton among women, 31 to 26 percent. As the air of inevitability around Clinton vanishes, so does her lock on female voters. And the Obama campaign is trying to lock down his new supporters with a very special appeal to the peacenik earth mother it apparently believes is lurking within every woman (or at least every Democratic primary voter).

This is an interesting article. What women want has been debated since they earned the right to vote through the 19th Amendment in 1920. This still surprises many men, to think how recently women were allowed equality in the right to vote. They have not even had the right to vote for 100 years yet. That is the blink of an eye in the history of mankind. It is actually an indication that for almost half of the life of our nation, women were only indirectly allowed a say in government. No matter how influential they were with their husbands, the secrecy of the ballot box assured that ultimately men did what they wanted and were not accountable for the discussions they had with their wives. You have to be somewhat sympathetic to that due to the past injustice.

Yet one of the most egregious examples of new evil in trying to level the playing field is the injustices that have been perpetrated under a bill called Title Nine Sports. Men have been denied participation in sports where they are willing to compete without compensation due to the insistence that women in equal numbers had to be found to also participate in some sport. The problem is there are not enough women who have an interest in sports. We have gone from a situation where women who were interested in sports were not given an opportunity to where men who are interested in sports are denied opportunity because of women demanding an equality that is not equal. How is the second evil less egregious than the first?

Today, there are a large number of women who determinedly believe that unless and until some woman is voted into being President, they are still second class citizens. The evil in this idea is that they will vote for almost anyone, no matter how corrupt, to make sure a women wins.

The current idea that among those who have decided on a candidate, Obama leads Clinton, ignores the fact that almost half of the democrat women voters are still failing to state a choice. The polls that indicate a leaning (something that has long predicted the ultimate choice that happens when people go into a voting booth) still gives the overwhelming lead to Clinton. That intangible idea, that it is time for a woman to be on top, will give Clinton a big edge.

However Clinton could not be a worse choice for the first woman President. She has ridden her husband's coat tails throughout her career. Her victory will permanently enshrine the idea that a woman cannot stand on her own, but has to use a man to get ahead. There has already been a huge increase in oral sex in America due to the dysfunctional relationship proved by Hillary "standing by her man" when he cheated in the Lewinsky matter. Young women got the message.

Hillary Clinton is not a good choice to be the first woman President. I wonder whether women see that through their still unhealthy belief that they have to get special rights and hold men back, like they do in Title Nine Sports, in order to be equal. This attitude is not a good sign. Neither is their support for Hillary.