<p>Has anyone heard whether Elizabeth Edwards has endorsed Obama as well?</p>
<p>Second Garland.</p>
<p>Hondu, are you the first person on CC to mention Kathleen Sebelius as VP choice for Obama? I heard this mentioned on the radio about a month ago along the lines of “everybody knows he’s going to have K.S. as VP”, as though it were a done deal and old news. Yet no one on CC seems to have thought it til now. Wonder why.</p>
<p>Third Garland.</p>
<p>"Every powerful man (with or without dyed hair) that turns out to support Obama risks being perceived as one more joining the herd of “powerful men ganging up against a potential first female President”. </p>
<p>When will these men realize that this can only consolidate, us older women to turn out even more strongly to support Hillary? As Cokie Roberts said on This Week “Every older woman who has worked diligently for years and tried unsuccessfully to break the glass ceiling can see this as her prize being taken away by a cute young, charming guy who just showed up on the block!”.
"</p>
<p>I’m 56, female, and am an Obama supporter. While I happen to also be black, I have white and Hispanic female, middle aged friends who also are Obama supporters. In fact, most of my middle aged female friends (the majority of whom are white) are Obama supporters.</p>
<p>Fine to speak for yourself, but you can’t speak for all middle aged women.</p>
<p>I don’t see men like Edwards ganging up on Hillary. I don’t like the fact that she voted for the war. I also don’t like the fact that most of her political experience was accomplished by being a politician’s wife, not a politican herself. And I don’t want Bill Clinton back in the White House. I was a supporter of Bill Clinton when he ran, but he blew his presidency, and I don’t want him in the White House again even as first man.</p>
<p>I also don’t like the pitch, “Vote for Hillary because she’s a woman.” I agree with others who posted that it’s insulting. I’d feel the same way about, “Vote for Obama because he’s black.”</p>
<p>NYMomof2: I read in a news item that, Elizabeth Edwards is NOT part of this endorsement. I won’t be too shocked if she endorses Hillary even at this late stage of the game.</p>
<p>But, really, if Elizabeth Edwards endorses Clinton, who’ll care? Elizabeth Edwards is only a politician’s wife, not influential in her on right.</p>
<p>Edward’s endorsement wont change anything. At this point in the campaign, both Obama and Hillary have an established coalition that won’t change if God himself comes down and endorse one over the other. The coalitions are pretty much set, and I strongly believe that whoever wins the nomination will have a very difficult time convincing the other coalition to vote for him or her. </p>
<p>Earlier in the campaign, Obama was bragging about how he will be able to get Hillary’s coalition, and She won’t be able to get his. That is when it hit me that, this guy is not about unifying the party, if he really wants to unify the party, shouldn’t he work very hard to convince his coalition to vote for Hillary is she is the nominee?</p>
<p>How soon we have forgotten about the Bush campaign in 2000; He was the change candidate, the outsider who was going to bring everybody together to solve the problems facing the country. The only groups Bush has been able to bring together are Halliburton, blackwater, and his oil buddies to milk this country dry. I don’t think we envisioned this kind of change where the common people are getting the short end of the stick, and oil companies are bringing in record profits (I believe in free trade and capitalism, but I also believe in fairness, and a lot of the oil companies and speculators are not playing fair). </p>
<p>The sexism and the mysoginistic attitude of the media has really been very nauseating. I have decided to boycott all the media with the exception of PBS, WSJ, FT, and my local TV station. I won’t in a million years treat my mother (aunties, female cousins and friends) in such a distateful manner, and I wont patronize entities that treat women as second class citizens. </p>
<p>Ted Kennedy was over 600 delegates behind Carter, and from all the things I have read, no one in the media suggested that he should drop out since there is no way he can close the gap. Jesse Jackson was over a 1000 delegates behind, and again, I don’t remember the media telling him to drop out. Hillary is only 150 delegates behind, and all the “pundits” are telling her to drop out. Why is this so?</p>
<p>I don’t know the group next in line for the media. Judging by the way things are going, old and rural white people are going to be the next target.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’re so right, Tega. The black man should have seized his chance and jumped at the opportunity to be Clinton’s VP. </p>
<p>After all, the super delegates are endorsing Hillary so furiously we can’t keep count; they have indeed made Edwards’ endorsement meaningless. </p>
<p>By the way, have you considered a career on SNL? They would be happy to have someone with such a blind loyalty for Hillary to accompany a great sense of humor. Amy Poehler redux?</p>
<p>Thank you for the comical interlude.</p>
<p>I don’t get it either. I think it’s fine for Hillary to stay in till the end and see what influence she can have on whatever happens next. I think there is way too much dropping out early in the primary process, leaving those at the end with too few choices. There are parts of Hillary’s platform that I liked better than Obama’s, and while I didn’t choose to vote for her, I think anyone who wants to vote for her should have the opportunity.</p>
<p>Nice to see that Hillary herself says it would be a big mistake for her supporters to vote for McCain if Obama ends up being the nominee. Hopefully her supporters will respect her opinion.</p>
<p>Completely agree with post 30 – though also not a Hilary supporter. And not only does it reaffirm the process, in this case it’s necessary to see where the controversies and divisions are, in the party and in the country.</p>
<p>Tega:</p>
<p>“Women”? Speak for yourself. I don’t feel that I’m treated as a second-class citizen. I did not vote for Hillary. </p>
<p>If Hillary had been the front-runner and nominee, I would have voted for her, despite quite a lot of reservations (including but not limited to Bill’s role, past, present and future). But she’s not. Why should Obama urge his supporters to get behind Hillary?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I normally love Cokie Roberts, but this??? Yuck!</p>
<p>I’m a 55 year-old, white female who has fought the glass ceiling wars. I have long wanted the opportunity to vote for a woman for high elective office (my state has never has a female congressperson, senator, or governor) but not Hillary.</p>
<p>Like Garland and Northstarmom I find the notion that I should support a woman because she’s a woman insulting. I want to support the best candidate, the person who will fight to make the changes I think need to be made. I supported Edwards in 2004 and again this year until the handwriting was on the wall, and then enthusiastically switched to Obama.</p>
<p>Thank you John! (Although I wish you had endorsed earlier) and Go Obama!!! End the national nightmare!!</p>
<p>Inthebiz. Totally agree with your post. My ‘prize’ would never IMHO be considered having Hillary as president. She is a Senator in my state and I do not want her as my president.</p>
<p>I am a 50 yr old female and find the notion of supporting a candidate based on their sex or color abhorrent. I support based on the candidate’s position on areas that matter to me.</p>
<p>Thank you, Edwards. Let’s start worrying about McCain, Dems, and less about each other.</p>
<p>I saw Cokie Roberts on “This Week” and was surprised how much the criticism of Clinton was interpreted as sexism.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well, I don’t agree with the perception of what is going on with respect to Hillary and a glass ceiling, but I am not sure Cokie does either. Nevertheless, I know at least a few women who are supporting Hillary because of this perception, and Cokie makes a valid point.</p>
<p>For me, as a committed feminist, I am appalled that feminists are saying that criciticsm of Hillary = sexism. I, and those I know, criticize her quotes and her policies, not her gender. And beyond the far-right news sources, I don’t believe that the media has criticized her as a woman, but as a candidate.</p>
<p>It doesn’t help women for our most successful woman candidate to say “oooh, poor me, the guys are ganging up” rather than look at the actual campaign to understand who backed who and why.</p>
<p>Agreed. As a feminist, I don’t think that means I HAVE to vote for the female candidate.</p>
<p>I sat next to some highly educated, powerful women at a dinner recently. They said they supported Hillary because she’s a woman. When I suggested this sounded like a sexist rationale, one turned on me and said: “No, it’s a feminist argument.” (I’m not sure there was a difference). She continued and said that she wanted a role model for her daughter. I am doubtful that having a female president will inspire more young women to go into math/science. She next argued that women had been suffering from slavery as badly as blacks. In the US? I was incredulous. Finally, she and several other Hillary supporters as the table argued that McCain did not deserve to be praised for his heroism. Lots of poor, ordinary women were heroic on a day-to-day basis and did not get recognition. I had to shake my head.
I would not have voted for Indira Ghandi or Margaret Thatcher.</p>