Member Avatar

New York Times shows its cluelessness in wondering about that.

Imagine! The paper of Go-Go boots and daily attacks on Hillary is not quite clear.

I guess that internal poll forced Obama to look at us – and NY Times to write about it:

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is teaming stars from soap operas and “Sex and the City” with congresswomen in contested states. Mr. McCain, the Republican nominee, is sending tailored mailings on taxes to women who drive minivans, watch “The Biggest Loser” or “Lost” and know their way to the nearest big-box store.

And both campaigns are trying to highlight the issues they think will draw more support from women, with Mr. Obama emphasizing pay equity and abortion rights and Mr. McCain playing up his “maverick” image and raising questions of respect.

Ding!Ding!Ding!Ding! RESPECT – what a novelty!

The other piece of good news: they figured out that Roe is not the cure-all miracle

In part, the Obama campaign is emphasizing the Republican ticket’s opposition to abortion rights. The campaign ran a radio advertisement during the Republican convention calling the party’s platform on abortion “extreme” because it did not include an exception for rape or incest.

But that issue alone may not swing many women. In a Gallup poll in May, 14 percent of women said that a candidate for major office must share their view on abortion (about the same percentage as among men). For half the women in the poll, abortion was one issue among many affecting their decision

After lying that Obama tried to win over Clinton’s supportes we are told

In particular, they are competing for working-class white women, the group that could be especially pivotal in the states likely to decide the election.

and while Obama has all the glitz and the stars, NYT dismissively informs us

and trying to keep alive the anger about sexism that many women felt during Mr. Obama’s primary campaign against Mrs. Clinton.

Guess what guys? You did such a great job, McCain doesn’t have to lift a finger!

Women have voted in greater proportions than men for almost three decades — in 2004, nearly nine million more women voted than men, 67.3 million to 58.5 million. But the hard-fought candidacy of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain’s selection of Ms. Palin as the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket have put new cultural and ideological elements more fully into play.

“It’s because there were these women who supported Hillary Clinton, some of whom so visibly said they might not support Obama or might sit it out or vote for John McCain,” said Susan Carroll, a senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers who has written extensively on the gender gap in voting. “That really called attention to the fact that women were going to be critically important.”

Does it mean we are getting woed finally by Obama? Why should they?

But, said Anita Dunn, a senior adviser: “We are not ceding women with children. We have a candidate whose wife is a working mom with two young children.”

Besides, he’ll just “use” Hillary again

To secure working-class women, the campaign sees Mrs. Clinton as its best surrogate, and has sent her to Florida, Nevada and Ohio, states she won in the primaries.

So, NYT article happily ends on a supremely dismissive note: who cares what you think?

Though there is little question that Ms. Palin’s bursting onto the scene has put pressure on the Obama campaign, it is unclear how much difference she will make. Geraldine A. Ferraro created a small bounce in the polls when Walter F. Mondale chose her as his running mate in 1984, making her the first woman on a major party ticket. But in the end, the nation went in a landslide for President Ronald Reagan.

“Ultimately in that election,” Ms. Carroll said, “people voted the top of the ticket.”

Well, from the paper that tols us there were WMDs in Iraq – we shall see.


It seems Obama solved the reaching to women question –

visit the Runway to Change and buy a shirt!! Like maybe this one:

Member Avatar