Perhaps because they don't. You vote Hilliary, you get Obama. Sure they voted, but they lost and in the US system don't get jack for that.

They wanted the first female president of the US, a touchstone for US feminists since the 1890s. What they have instead is the possibility of the first black US president. And some people are going to take that badly and feel they have been ignored, denied, whatever.

From everything that has been written it appears that Hiliary's boomer feminist supporters don't see a lot to like in Obama or his team, which is decidedly male centric. Obama hasn't helped with some of his statements being seen as patronising etc, though mind you I haven't been able to work out why but these people are touchy.

So yeah, their votes haven't counted. They been counted, but once again the boomer feminists know that the male dominated democratic establishment hates them and is only interested in keeping women in the kitchen. Give them time and they'll actually like the outcome, nothing better than being oppressed to make you feel good about your ideology.

Because it politics and their opponents? its good tactics and not dirty IMHO, just clever.

crypto-fascist? wow. haven't heard that one in a while.

??? You think so? From her reported comments and activities during the campaign (and this from OZ so maybe we only got the low lights) she's a hardened political operator just like Hilliary. Looks like Hilliary too for that matter. Same middle of the road, conservative dress sense. maybe there is a shop were political women have to dress from.

Politicians usually go for the middle of the road as that is the best way to get the majority of votes. That makes them all conservative (in the true sense of the term). Obama is likely to be exactly the same because if he pushes a notably leftwing agenda during the campaign he looses. if he does it after being elected he looses the next election. And the dual nature of the US government Legislature vs Executive also makes it difficult to impossible to get anything past except with major compromises which leads to a middle of the road, conservative approach.

The left were disappointed with Bill Clinton. The right were disappointed with GW Bush. Chances are the left with be equally disappointed with b Obama. That';s what democracy is designed to do, disappoint the radicals and deliver to the majority.

shhhhh. no is the time for coming together. healing. conciliation. now is the time to nod yes, uh huh, yes, youre right to all those harriet christians out there.



and then when obama wins in november

I saw Hillary's speech tonight, and then I saw this video. Now it all makes sense.

Young Hillary Clinton:


Apologies if it was already posted, but I've never seen it. I LOL'ed, and I don't LOL much.

Actually, if anyone had a male centric campaign it was indeed Hilary, who warmongored, bullied, and ran roughshod over others.

Here is a nice
piece from July 2007 about how Obama is more of a Woman (in a good way) than Hilary will ever be.




And Michelle Obama is nothing like Hilary, unless you imply a woman who is also well educated and successful in her chosen field.

WAIT -- I bet it is the "power fashion" that made you think they were similar

I think Michelle Obama reminds me more of Jackie Kennedy. Unlike Hillary, she's got class.

Their votes did count. Hillary received delegates for them, just as Obama got delegates for his votes. I don't see how this doesn't compute.

I mean, in sports, one side wins and one loses. The losing team still gets credit for all the points they scored. And most athletes know how to accept a loss; they (usually) don't go around claiming they didn't get credited with enough points for their touchdowns or baskets or what-have-you.

Sports is a winner take all field of endeavour. If your political system is run the same way (and the US Presidency tends to be) then you get people who feel they are not being counted. Hilliary's supporters represent a quite different element of the Democratic party to Obama's. If they feel they aren't being counted then they will become disillusioned and won't vote.

This is part of the whole "healing" process Howard Dean goes on with. It isn't about making Obama supporters feel better, it is about ensuring that Hilliary's supporters, especially the boomer feminists, don't stay home come november. You may not like Hiliary, but her supporters have a right to be heard and if you simply go "nah, nah, you lost" then they take their bat and ball and go home home and we can play "Welcome President McCain".

Hilliary's supporters have to be shown that their beliefs and desires are going to be counted and supported. Not something that a forceful, competitive nomination campaign is good at. But Obama had better manage it once he has the nomination. The bullshit platitudes from both sides mean squat unless they are believed by the women who came out in droves to work in Hiliary's campaign at grass roots level.

A woman willing to play attack dog for her husband is hardly Jackie O to mention the comparison made by another poster. Nor did I mean the comparison in a negative way. Despite the scorn heaped on Hilliary by the left-wing of her own party she is a hugely successful and capable politician. I'd say Obama's wife is just as competent given the razor sharp impact she has made on her husbands campaign. But that makes her Obama's Hilliary, rather than Bush's whatever her name is.

This is the sort of comparison that drives feminists mad. Female candidates are either weak or they are bullies. Same stones got chucked at Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi etc.

Feminist commentators during the campaign have argued that Hilliary is being attacked for playing the mans' game like the men do. They have also complained about the Obama campaign trotting out all the usual attacks on female candidates (hence the move to using Michelle Obama to attack Hilliary) which is one reason for the vitrolic dislike of Obama exhibited by many of the Boomer feminists.

A strong approach is unnecessary for Obama as male voters aren't going to instinctively worry about whether he is strong enough to lead or what will happen once a month (he has testes and that is two of the key requirements to be a leader). So instead he has concentrated on playing to other elements.

I would be very surprised that if once he has the nomination, and he can stop playing to the left, that he doesn't get all macho to go after the moderate republicans and non-aligned voters he will need to win.