Encouraged by Women's Response, Clinton Stresses Female Side

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301274.html?hpid=topnews

In the latest Washington Post-ABC News survey, conducted in late September, 57 percent of women said they would support Clinton in a Democratic primary, compared with 15 percent for Sen. Barack Obama and 13 percent for former senator John Edwards. Of those who support Clinton, 31 percent said that her chance to make history was a factor in their decision.

At the same time, in a theoretical general election test against Republican front-runner Rudolph W. Giuliani, Clinton has a lead that is almost entirely attributable to women. She also has a gaping lead among self-described feminists, according to the same poll. Men and women who call themselves feminists preferred Clinton 64 to 30 percent, while those who did not were evenly divided between Clinton and Giuliani, 48 to 46 percent.

The flip side of her strong support from women is the potential for a backlash among men -- especially in a state such as Iowa, the first caucus state, which has never elected a woman to Congress. Mark Penn, her chief strategist, said the "level of emotional attachment" between female voters and Clinton is strong enough to help carry her through the Iowa caucuses, which he said he expected to be 55 to 60 percent women. Fifty-four percent of Democratic caucusgoers in 2004 were women.

"It may be true that statewide they haven't elected a woman, but that's very different from a Democratic primary or caucus," Penn said. He also pointed out that Clinton is faring better among men in recent surveys than she did earlier this year.

This is the same MSM that sold the public the bullshit about Iraq having WMD.

Oy.

who support a candidate based solely on her gender? I would hope that the women of this country would be smarter than that. Vote for Hillary if you like her policies and positions, but not because she's a woman. That's just stupid.

they are, they have to act out their military and cowboy fantasies. Yeah, I would like to vote for a woman just because she is a woman and will have a cooler head about some of these things. But then we get a female running and she always has to prove how she will not be womanly, she will be just as tough as the men. Yes, that is probably why Hillary voted as she did and why she will not say it was a mistake. And do not start in on how women will go berserk once a month!!!

so you won't hear any of that PMS stuff come out of MY mouth. All I'm trying to say about Hillary (or any candidate) is that, in my opinion, people should or should not vote for her based on her POLICIES and PRINCIPLES, not on her gender. And if Sen. Clinton is deliberately trying to act "manly" because she thinks she'll win that way, it kind of turns me, as a woman, off. I would vote for a peace-loving man over a war-condoning woman any day.

They're already in menopause!

No PMS crap to worry about, there! :evilgrin:

As I posted during the summer: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Sparkly/58

I think there's powerful symbolism in having Clinton or Obama in office. It says something to the world, and to our citizens; it definitely provides a role-model for children that we haven't had before. It shatters preconceptions about what's possible.

I agree that it might not be a factor for everyone, or it might be only a small factor for some and a larger one for others, but it's there and I don't have a problem with some people valuing it highly.

Funny term. Made me think of something like this:

:woohoo:

Blindly vote for whomever looks the most female!



Aren't identity politics grand? :puke: