Before the end of the Democratic primary process there was much speculation about Barack Obama's support among women. The fact that Obama's support amongst women was weak while he was running against a woman candidate gave many pundits all the excuse they needed to suggest that support would remain weak once the primaries ended. They were obviously wrong, as the current polls show.

Another premise put forward by some pundits is that women vote more with their emotions than on the issues. They are as wrong about this as they are about Obama's weakness with female voters. All that is needed to disprove this claim is to look at women's voting patterns over the years.

Women have always favored the Democratic Party over the GOP. The Democratic Party is also the party with the best record and issues platform when it comes to women's issues. Put those two factors together and it becomes apparent that women have been voting on the issues all along.

In short, the numbers released last night by NBC News and The Wall Street Journal are really bad for John McCain. Here's the key graph:

However, Obama has a seven-point advantage (46-39) among all white women. How important is that lead? Newhouse explains that Republican candidates always expect to win white men by a substantial margin, but it is white women that usually decide the race. "If a Republican wins among white women, we usually win that election," he says, noting that George W. Bush carried that group in 2000 and 2004.

A seven-point for Barack Obama among White women might not seem overwhelmingly remarkable at this juncture, even when taken together with the quote from GOP pollster Neil Newhouse regarding the importance of this demographic to the electoral success of the Republican Party. (Newhouse also mentions the suburban White women's vote, which I discuss a bit below the fold.) But looking through recent exit polling it becomes clear that these numbers could be borderline disastrous for the McCain campaign.

During his 2004 reelection victory, George W. Bush carried White women by a 55 percent to 44 percent margin over John Kerry -- meaning that Obama is already running ahead (or at least even) with Kerry in this demographic while McCain is running more than 15 points behind Bush within this key subgroup. In 2000, Bush narrowly won White women, 49 percent to 48 percent, and even during the Democrats' sound victory in the 2006 midterm elections GOP House candidates won White women's votes by a 50 percent to 49 percent margin. So not only is McCain running well behind where Bush ran in this demographic during his reelection campaign, McCain is also running significantly behind where Bush ran during his popular vote loss and where his party performed during their big loss in 2006. Just which candidate is it that has a problem among White women voters?

    This is my first diary entry on any forum.  I hope that you will forgive my poor writing; each diary I read adds some facet to my understanding of the world in which we live and I hope that this humble attempt will contribute to that whole for someone else.

    Senator Clinton was the epitome of grace and class today in her poignant speech.  I watched her campaign these past 16 months with mixed feelings.  As a woman who has struggled my entire career against the perception that because of my gender I am somehow less capable than the men, I longed to see her as the better choice, but based on the issues and on my own feelings about her words, I supported Sen. Obama for the nomination.  In her speech today she voiced many of the challenges that women face in the world, acknowledged both how far we have come and how far we have yet to go, and began the process of healing some of the rifts between a lot of us and our opponents' supporters.  I won't waste time and words listing those; we all know there have been some on both sides.

    That glass ceiling has been there all our lives.  Every woman who takes a risk and refuses to listen to all the reasons why she "can't" accomplish her goals knows that ceiling in intimate detail, and each of us has left at least one minute fissure.  Our mothers and grandmothers fought for rights that today we take for granted.  In our nation's youth, Abigail Adams wrote many insightful letters to her husband.  One example is this excerpt:

"Frailty, thy name is woman."

Sound familiar? how about this one:

"Hell Hath No Fury Like A Woman Scorned"

Whether taken as a compliment or insult, there is no doubt these phrases are sexist.  

Do women really experience anger on some greater level then men?  Are women less able to control their emotions?  Are women more likely to take rash actions, to make impulsive decisions based on their emotions?

To think so is surely sexist, which is why I say:

Sexism, Thy Name Is John McCain

follow me below . . .

this diary is crossposted at DailyKos

So a number of very prominent diarists here at MyDD have apparently come to the conclusion that they are going to the Democratic National Convention in Denver this August to participate in the process of choosing our party's nominee...

Well...although I'm neither a pledged nor an "automatic" (I love you, Harold Ickes) delegate to the 2008 DNC Convention (look out...2012 here I come!), and have no press or media credentials (or any redeeming value whatsoever...) I have decided that I can't pass up such an historic opportunity myself!

I've never met anyone from MyDD in real life before. But so many bloggers on this site have been saying they are going to Denver recently, I can't imagine we wouldn't run into one another! See me in Denver? You guys are darn right you'll see me in Denver!! Although, I should make it clear...I won't be going to protest or call for a floor fight or anything quite so dramatic...I'll be organizing for a much, much bigger fight ahead.

Ya know, I hear all this talk about wanting to bring our party together once our nominee is chosen at the convention in Denver, but when this latest in a long string of incidences of hate-speech crop up, all we get are more of the same half-assed statements ("deeply disappointed") from camp Obama distancing himself from... (fill in the blank).

Pfleager Video

(Credit goes to NoQuarter for first posting this - it's all over the net now and the networks are starting to air it as well)

Howard Wolfson spoke to this issue in a statement yesterday, in which he noted that Obama has yet to condemn this guy...

"Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counterproductive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics.  We are disappointed that Senator Obama didn't specifically reject Father's Pflegler's despicable comments about Senator Clinton, and assume he will do so."

I wrote 2 Diaries about this issue in the past month... and I've sent the Obama campaign numerous emails since January asking them to explain to me why "Women" didn't warrant a category under the "Issues" section of his campaign website. All "Women" issues were under the "People" section. Personally, I found that completely unacceptable. It bothered me tremendously.

Clearly, my tiny voice was not alone. I'm sure there were thousands of women who felt equally slighted by this.

Today "Women" IS A CATEGORY under the "Issues" pull-down menu on the Obama campaign website. The last time I looked this was NOT the case (perhaps a week ago?), but it has been changed!

I think this is a smart move by Obama as Hillary Clinton's female supporters begin to look more closely at him.

Clearly his campaign staff DID recognize that this was deserving of a redesign and that "Women" warranted a listing under "Issues" (unlike the Obama supporters here who frankly belittled and dismissed my concerns as petty and hair-splitting everytime I raised them).

Good for Obama. It does make me feel better to see these issues proudly, clearly front-and-center... as they should be on ANY Democratic candidate's platform!

Here were my old diaries championing for this issue (and the responses I received) if anyone is interested:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/9/19271 8/5358
Obama and Women's Reproductive Freedom

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/5/19/1884 4/9078
Obama "Buries" NARAL Endorsement

Women across America are uniting in earnest to denounce the unfair and sexist treatment of Hillary Clinton by both the media and the Obama campaign.

The Ohio-based group of Clinton supporters announced that they intend to actively work to dismantle Barack Obama if he should become the nominee of the party. The group says that Hillary has been subjected to gender discrimination from party leaders and the media.

Organisers Cynthia Ruccia, 55, and Jamie Dixey, 57, say they are organising women, men, minorities, union members and others in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan - all important swing states in November - to protest at Senator Clinton's treatment.

In a press release, the group said: "We have a plan to campaign against the Democratic nominee. We have the (wo)manpower and the money to make our threat real. And there are millions of supporters who will back us up in the swing states. If you don't listen to our voice now, you will hear from us later."

If these supporters are able to successfully organize a coalition against Obama, and it sounds like they have the money to promote their cause, then the Democrats are going to have a huge problem on their hands at the convention, and especially if Obama gets the nomination. I see a disaster waiting to happen!

Women are angry with Barack Obama and the media