I don't see why this has to be directed solely at former Clinton supporters, how about just at ALL McCain supporters?

There's already enough stigma against those of us who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primary. MOST of us are smart enough not to vote for McCain and I have a feeling many others will come around before too long. So why fuel the flame-fest that already happens?

As an independent voter, I find this list and its implications very offensive.

The way to get women who are feeling unsure about Obama to support the democratic ticket is not to scare or bully them, guilt trip them or tell them that what they are concerned about is stupid or irrelevant.

Reaching out and healing happens with real conversation and respect - not this kind of crap.

Many independents, such as myself, worry that an Obama presidency will make us loose our veto majority int he congress. Many even support the constitutional fundamentalism of these sorts of issues being left up to the states.

I'm still undecided, but the more stuff like this I see the more it makes me roll my eyes.

I wonder if Harriet Christian has signed up yet...

That is really creepy.

I always thought it was douching with Mountain Dew though. Considerably more unhealthy habit.

Wow. I agree with almost every libertarian feminist issue but equal pay for "equal" work legislation is extremely sexist.
Isn't it enough to give women the same legal rights as men and let the capitalist system determine pay? If women were actually making less (78% of what men make) for equal work then why not start your own business that only hires women. I thought capitalists were greedier than what you give them credit.
Anyways if feminist want to go down this road where the government determines pay in the private sector, expect to loose a lot of male support.

This is classic!
Thanks for posting!

I really don't buy this whole Clinton supporting democrats supporting McCain thing. Clinton supporting republicans or independents maybe.

I'm a bit angry and disappointed in this post and what it assumes about Clinton supporters and their possible choice to vote for McCain.

Kate Harding has a fabulous post & the comments are also wonderful in explaining why some democrats/independents may choose not to vote for Obama: http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/06/in-case-you-were-wondering.html

wow...this attitude really pisses me off. it must require a lot of privilege to be able to pledge to do something so reactionary...even in the name of self-righteous irony. the way that the clinton-mccain switch is being articulated almost makes me feel like some are willing to do this because the impact of mccain's potential presidency won't have the same dire effects on their lives as it will on others...namely, the social intersections of female, of color, queer, and working class identities.

It’s true, a lot of Clinton supporters are still licking their wounds after their candidate’s loss. But let’s not alienate them: we will only reunite our party by reaching out to them, not demanding, not condescending, not lambasting, and not pigeonholing.

I second M.Marie. Some good points are made over at Shakesville, including a pretty neat analogy about Clinton voters "coming home" and the kinds of threats often made by abusive partners.

BOO.

Way to completely miss the point of Clinton supporters voting for McCain.

What a disappointment. No wonder I stopped coming here regularly.

Gordon, just how are women supposed to get the capital to start their own business to pay women more? Magic?

I'm with M.Marie.

Further, this is the last straw of malicious stupidity for me to take Feministing off my blog reader.

I'm truly sorry if this offends people. I really don't think this post that Kate wrote is meant to insult Clinton supporters, but it does bring up (humorously) the fact that McCain's policies towards women are scary, which is true.

wow. "malicious stupidity"? are you serious?

i doubt very much that the oath was intended to insult anyone--aside from implying that clinton supporters, in switching to mccain, may not have thought it all through.

mccain IS bad for women's rights. and i read m.marie's link. and you know what? if you guys want to give a spite-vote, go ahead. but that sounds much more like "malicious stupidity" than this oath post.

If you'd like to post something that humorously points out all of the crap we'd have to put up with under more Republican "leadership," check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FiQJ9Xp0xxU It makes many feminist cases for why we should vote for someone other than McCain, without constantly holding Roe v Wade over our heads (thanks so much M. Marie for linking to Kate Harding's post - it's fascinating and puts a lot of what I was feeling but couldn't name into words)

Apologies if this is a second post. I think my message died about an hour ago in the mod queue.

It *is* insulting to tell Clinton supporters that bad consequences will ensue if McCain is elected. Probably a handful of these voters are Republicans or racists at heart, but most aren't. And, being sentient, we've heard of the issues that Kate mentions.

For me the question is, Which would be worse, rewarding misogyny as a campaign tactic or electing John McCain? I think reasonable people can disagree about the answer.

Yes, this pledges main purpose was to piss off the clinton supporters and not show the consequences of voting for McCain. Someone needs to get over the candidate and focus on the issues already. Jeez.

I think a lot of people are missing the point of this post. I don't think it's trying to attack Clinton supporters. It does two things:
1) Attacks those who are switching from Clinton to McCain because they're sore losers and angry that Clinton didn't win the nomination (which, in my opinion (and I support both candidates) is STUPIDLY childish).
2) Most importantly, brings attention to the many important women's issues that McCain falls SO, SO short on.

Look, I didn't vote for Hilary, so this isn't as big a deal for me, and it's not a hard choice.

The point is to remind Clinton supporters that whether or not Obama was your first choice, he is doing more to represent you than McCain is.

When we talk about John McCain, we're talking about a man who believes:

That women have no right to choice. Not even in regards to birth control.

That homosexuality is a disease. And that tolerance of it led to the events in New Orleans.

That we can intervene in the foreign policy of any country we want. Regardless of its cost to the everyday American, both in taxes and in blood.

If Clinton voters don't pay attention to those things, then I have no problem recognizing that they are being stupid and ignoring the fact that Senator Obama actually cares about representing them and their vote, while McCain is preoccupied with warmongering and catering to corporations.

"....why not start your own business that only hires women"

gordon.gekko,
Thats illegal... unfortunetly.

We need legislation that states women must receive equal pay for equal work because without that, employers will continue to discriminate against women. Making it legal gives it heft, otherwise pay discrimination will continue to be perpetuated. We cant leave it up to our capitalist system, and besides, it hasnt worked that way anyways.

oops...thats 'unfortunately'

Meg,

I think you're really missing the point of Harding's post. I'm not voting in spite and I believe many other Clinton supporters aren't either. There are plenty of reasons why I'm choosing not to vote for Obama and none of them are spiteful. I personally am choosing to vote GP. How can you say that I'm throwing away my vote or doing something in spite because I don't believe that Obama is best for this position just yet, that I'm tired of being ignored by the Democratic party, that I'm not just automatically going to roll over to Obama's camp just because I was originally a Democratic candidate supporter. I think the media keeps using the same rolls of film to illustrate Clinton supporters as people who are willing to throw their vote away, when in fact, most of us have been thinking long and hard about what to do with our vote and how it's going to affect not just now, but further down the line. I'm just pretty amazed that you could read Hardings' post and the comments and then turn around and say people are being spiteful. What the people over there are being is conscientious Americans who are determined to vote for a candidate who follows their ideals currently, and if there isn't that candidate now, they're looking towards the future and the best choice they can make.

Vanessa,

I figured that this was something posted in jest, but at this point, I'm just feeling like Clinton supporters are being slammed from all sides and to come on a feminist blog and seeing a post like that is not what I need.

For anyone interested in the facts, Frank Rich wrote a brilliant op-ed in the NY Times today explaining how false and idiotic the idea of Clinton supporters going over to McCain is.

"But the notion that all female Clinton supporters became “angry white women” once their candidate lost — to the hysterical extreme where even lifelong Democrats would desert their own party en masse — is itself a sexist stereotype. That’s why some of the same talking heads and Republican operatives who gleefully insulted Mrs. Clinton are now peddling this fable on such flimsy anecdotal evidence."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/15/opinion/15rich.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

I would never presume to tell anyone how to do their job, but I would imagine that a website that purports to champion women and feminism would at the very least go to the trouble of doing a little research and getting the facts straight before peddling disinformation that only serves to reinforce negative stereotypes about women's intellectual capacities and ability to reasonably decide what's in their own best interest.

oh dear,
More women alienating women...more making assumptions and implying that a vote that is not for Obama is a sexists vote...
and it's coming from women who likely have voted independent o (or thought of it) in the past.

I don't know any Clinton supporters who are planning to vote for McCain. I do know a few who will not vote for Obama though.

I love feministing usually, but this post really irriatated me. Surely, we've all of us had motivation attributed to us often enough by asshat sexists, to be wary of building strawmen ourselves.

If you think those Hillary supporters who've switched to McCain are being foolish, or haven't thought things through, then why not just say so? Raise the issues in a direct manner that welcomes intelligent debate. Because this? comes off as sneering condescension.

I'm not saying one can't be outraged or disappointed that Hillary supporters would switch to McCain. That's fair enough, and I can understand that feeling. But when has this sort of passive aggression ever helped anything?

Hillary supporters aren't voting for McCain because they agree with his stance on women's issues, they're doing it because Obama has shown himself to be a clueless hypocrite.

Choosing McCain doesn't mean that you must agree with every position he takes on every single issue, it just means you think he'd do less damage to the country than a guy with a blank page for a resume.

As you know, this is kind of an important moment in the history of the world, and some people just don't trust an idealist to see us through, even if he does profess to share a large chunk of our ideology.

It's like the choice between an experienced pilot who is going to fly the plane somewhere you don't want to go, and a pilot who has never flown a plane in his life, but promises he can fly like no one before him ever has.

I totally understand that many people believe that McCain's economic and social policies will "crash the plane," but one of the main reasons we supported Hillary was because we respect experience.

I'm probably going to vote for Obama in November, but this Loyalty Oath thing is insulting and moronic, and I certainly can understand how many Hillary supporters would be prefer to shift their support to the devil they know.

Want to point out that this oath is not critical of anyone who is voting for Nader or McKinney, nor is it critical of anyone who is not planning to vote. In short, it is not crtical of everyone who doesn't want to vote for Obama; it is critical only of those voting for McCain.

Feministing is, so far as I can tell, 100% pro-choice, pro-comprehensive-sex-ed, and pro-equal pay for equal work. McCain opposes all of those things and will actively work to limit women's rights. This and other blogs shouldn't have to treat him with kid gloves because some people also dislike his main opponent.

In terms of the linked blog, I don't understand why being considered low-hanging fruit is offensive. Aren't all voters who care deeply about an issue on which there is a stark difference between the parties clearly more likely to vote for one or the other? It clearly sucks that the democrats have been able to take for granted a majority of women, African-Americans, urban areas, etc. But that is because the other party is soooo clearly bad on the issues we (to the limited extent that we can be grouped) care about. Isn't calling us low-haning fruit just making the non-offensive assumption that we will vote for the candidate who supports the issues we care about?

I find Katie's post very insulting in its assumptions, and she proves to be out of touch with average Democrats. On the off chance it was purely meant as satire, it sadly doesn't even work in that capacity.

We all pay taxes and jump through the hoops of everyday life in the US. We all earn the right to cast our vote as we choose. For instance, as much as I hate the fact that people voted for Nader in previous elections, how they spent this vote is not my call. Harassing people who may or may not be fellow Democrats is pretty unproductive.

Her bio says she was raised in the Upper West Side. I do wonder if she has spent significant time in other regions in order to gain a more well-rounded perspective; even if she's addressing only Democrats, the range of views on different issues is quite diverse.

I greatly look forward to her oath for conservatives supporting Obama.

Also, Kate Harding is right on with this statement:

Disclaimer that I really shouldn't need to begin with but shall: I will vote for Obama in November.

Should we create an abbreviation, like WWJD? I predict this is going to be very annoying as I too will inevitably have to repeat this many times before November.

How about "DGYPBIVON?"

"Don't get your panties in a bunch. I'm voting for Obama in November."

Oh and in case anybody missed it, "Auguste" at Pandagon cited this post and cherry-picked some individual comments-- comments from women here who took polite issue with the post and have every right to--to display over at that blog in a condescending, *and then some wimmins got maaadddd* way. Way to go, all around.

It's VERY offensive to be considered low-hanging fruit by the Democratic party.
Now, DGYPBIVON. But I am extremely frustrated with the Democratic party and how it takes liberal women for granted. It is slightly less sexist than the Republican party, and we women are supposed to be loyal? 99% of the time it ignores feminist issues, yet it expects and demands that liberal women support Dems unconditionally.

To quote Melissa:
"Roe is treated as the be-all end-all of politics for progressive women when we're being beaten over the head with it. But the moment we try to say this issue is important enough for us to consider voting elsewhere, then we are selfish idiots who don't understand that we're RUINING THE ENTIRE COUNTRY!

Reproductive rights should be the Most Important Issue Evah, which is why we should totally vote for the Democrats. But it shouldn't be so important that we actually give a shit how the Democrats actually deal with the issue."

What is Roe supposed to mean to a woman who already has to travel twelve hours to the nearest abortion provider? Who has to jump through hoops to obtain an abortion in her home state? Roe might as well not exist, as far as some American women are concerned. Where has the Democratic party been whilst the anti-choicers have been working around Roe to chip away at our reproductive rights?
Oh right, it treats "women's issues" as an afterthought until it realizes we're not obligated to vote for them.

A question for all of you new McCain supporters:

What issues made you switch sides?

"Isn't calling us low-hanging fruit just making the non-offensive assumption that we will vote for the candidate who supports the issues we care about?" - AP

No. It means we're there for the taking because we're desperate to protect what's left of our bodily autonomy. And as for "candidate who supports" - that's just it - candidates supposedly "on our side" DON'T *actively support* the issues we care about. Our reproductive freedom has hardly been safeguarded, or even advocated for passionately, by most Democrats. They count on the fact that they can cite Republicans as actively OPPOSING reproductive freedom, and necessarily this will keep us *in the fold*, voting Democratic. I'm certainly not saying the answer is to vote McCain, but i think this could be an important moment for feminists, if we come to this realization collectively and do something about it. It was a revelation for me, I'll be the first to admit. I don't know what that *do something* is, but the solution in my mind is not to keep voting out of fear, feeling like hostages to threats of overturning Roe. Wouldn't it be tremendous to vote for candidates who are unequivocal and resounding in their support for reproductive justice? Wouldn't it be grand if we claimed the power to pressure candidates to be unequivocal and resounding in their support? Rather than voting to merely avoid the opposite? Let's see if we can get Obama (or whomever) to be more active, more unequivocal, more resounding in his support. If we can't - that will also tell us something important.

For instance, we can stop giving Obama a pass by using misleading language to describe his actions (Ann). Your link in the weekly feminist reader said "Obama voiced support for gay marriage and abortion rights in a meeting with Protestant pastors." The text of the article actually reads:

"Obama gingerly breaches abortion"

"On abortion, Cortes said that Obama expressed personal opposition to the voluntary termination of pregnancy but added that 'making it illegal does not mean eliminating it, but would rather just make poor people suffer more than those with money.' He personally would rather there were no abortions at all, but he understands that changing the law is not the answer,' the reverend said."

Hardly compelling support. Also, even more worrisome is "While outgoing US President George W Bush had full support from the conservative Protestant voting block, neither McCain nor Obama can lay similar claim to either the conservative or liberal religious voter. Both candidates are expected to be scrambling for their backing in the coming months."

I wonder whose issues will take a backseat while those religious voters are courted? Sure, same story, different year, they have to do this, blah, blah, but that goes against the narrative of change and hope, doesn't it. It doesn't make me feel confident to have yet another candidate who personally opposes abortion and only speaks about it "gingerly" and with so many qualifications. We deserve more, and we can get more.

I don't get this whole idea of Clinton voters switching their vote to McCain because of his "experience." The differences between the America that he wants to see and the America that Clinton and Obama want to see are vast. The differences between the America that Clinton and Obama want to create are small - on the level of policy details that only the true wonks care about.

Choosing experience for experience's sake, without regard to ideology or vision for the country, may be fine when hiring a night-shift manager, but it's a stupid way to choose a President. The President has far too much power for ideology not to be weighted more than experience.

Oh for goodness sake, jstein. When are you people gonna get it? McCain supporters who voted for Hillary in the primaries are not reading feminist websites. You know, the "angry white women" who've turned to McCain are most likely Independents or moderate Dems/Republicans who supported Hillary for whatever reason this time around.
WE already get it.
It's not liberal, feminist Democrats who'll be voting McCain now that Hillary's out of the race. You're barking up the wrong tree and it's extremely tiresome.

One of the things I find most disturbing about this "debate" - aside from the fact that people can't seem to distinguish between reality and propaganda and rumors, is the total hypocrisy at its base.

Suddenly women are supposed to put women's issues above all else, and vote for Obama because he's our best "choice?" Funny how when women tried to do that during the primaries by voting for Clinton, they were slammed with the worst kind of abuse.

As credible journalists like Frank Rich at NYT have pointed out, this story is garbage. But even if a few former Clintonites go over to McCain, I'm sure the numbers won't be much higher than the many Obama supporters whom were also quoted during the primaries as saying they'd do the same if Clinton won the nomination.

One thing I'm trying to understand here is how Clinton suddenly became seen as the anti-establishment candidate. She is a moderate, right of center democrat. She started out the campaign as the inevitable, establishment candidate. She had more endorsements, superdelegates, and money.

Charity, Clinton has spoken with just as much, if not more qualification when discussing abortion. She has consistently described abortion as sad and tragic, and has said she would never have one. I happen to agree with her positions, and I greatly admired her for fighting for emergency contraception. However, she is certainly not as progressive as say, Cynthia McKinney. She and Obama have the exact same voting record in the senate, and they both have 100% ratings from NARAL. The bottom line for me was always that she voted for the war.

Other than the fact that she’s a woman, and has faced a lot of sexism, I don’t understand how she is seen as holding more “feminist values.” I want to be clear that I am NOT saying that women supported her simply because she is a woman. I know a lot of people who felt that she was the best qualified candidate. I just think that she is a political moderate, and the idea that she is "revolutionary" has a lot more to do with the fact that she is a woman than her actual positions.

Did I say anything about Clinton in this thread? I said we need to hold Democratic candidates more accountable to represent our positions and be less equivocal in their support for reproductive freedom. I said people had a right to take issue with this post, which is because it plays into a myth that huge numbers of Clinton supporters are throwing their support behind McCain. There's a post on this very blog about that myth. I used Obama in my comment because he is the nominee. If people would stop projecting their adversarial feelings onto other people's comments, and reading the name "Clinton" when it is not there, I think we'd get a lot farther in these conversations.

Charity,

I want to be clear, I am not saying it doesn't suck that America has two major political parties, one of which does everything possible to end women's autonomy, and that leaves those of us who support women's autonomy with not much in the way of options. I am just saying that given that shitty opressive reality, it doesn't seem offensive to me to think that women who support and care about choice are going to usually vote democrat.

Is is shitty to take that granted and not actually do anything to protect choice? Absolutely. And some democrats are guilty of that, and they should be called out on that. I am just saying that I am reluctant to blame the democratic party for the fact that pro-choice women usually feel compelled to vote for them.

I also think it is important to highlight that the "low-haning fruit" quote did not come from anyone associated with Obama or the democratic party.