Actually, I think women make up just over 50% of the national electorate in presidential elections, historically about 53%, IIRC, and I think 58% of the Democratic primary electorate.
But your post has pretty much nothing to do with mine. I'm not interested in a statistical debate. I was pointing out that a lot of women, including some who are quite prominent, did not support Hillary Clinton. A lot of men supported Hillary Clinton. There was more to this primary than gender and race.
Hillary Clinton made her own choices, from the AUMF to Mark Penn, and she lost.
OK. I wanna be enlightened like you. Explain to me how the "girls" I named, every single one of them accomplished in her own right, are "naïve". Besides the fact that they disagreed with you about who should be the Democratic nominee?
"Girls" like Kathleen Sebellius, Janet Napolitano, Caroline Kennedy, Maria Shriver, Amy Klobuchar, Stephanie Herseth, Caroline Cheeks, Anna Eshoo, Zoe Lofgren, Barbara Lee, Rosa DeLauro, Lois Capps, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Linda Sanchez and Jan Schiakowski?
I don't expect you to grasp how ironic, uninformed and most of all, sexist, your comment is, but it's all those things.
There is nothing Obama can do to win the votes of people like anna shane. She desperately wants him to lose so she can say "I told you so". This is the level of their commitment to issues, policy and social justice. Just read that post: Obama can win her vote by winning the election. These are people who invent offenses so that they can announce they can never forgive that thing they're pretending happened.
I find all this moaning about how "Clinton supporters were treated" more than a little irritating. I'm one of those latté-sipping, birkenstock-wearing hippies Archie Bunkerbuffer was sent out to belittle and trash in order to stoke resentment against Obama's supposed elitist supporters. I'm one of those naïve college kids--even though I'm forty years old and have a PhD--who was right about the Iraq War when Hillary Clinton was wrong, and who was dismissed with a sneer and a "just a speech" by Hillary Clinton. I'm one of those misogynists who had the gall to think that Hillary Clinton should have been judged on her record rather than her genitalia. I'm one of those cheaters who actually thought Hillary Clinton should be expected to play, win or lose, by the same rules as everyone else.
And if Hillary Clinton had won the nomination, I'd have put all that behind me and supported her, because I'm both a Democrat and a grown-up who understands that politics ain't beanbag. So, by the way, is Hillary Clinton (her husband.... we'll see).
I think Obama, and Clinton, did everything they could to discourage this kind of speculation. The news that Clinton was not vetted was not new last week, it was at least a month old. Bill Clinton's tactlessness was a pretty clear indication that he knew his wife was not going to be on the ticket. The only quasi-official people I saw trying to keep this hope alive were the usual ham-fisted suspects: Ferraro, Lanny the Liebercrat and FoxNews' own Howard Wolfson.
Give them a little room? This idiot is here every day spewing the same tired crap for the last two months. The political intertubeblogs are a rough-and-tumble place. If he insists on picking fights, he's gonna find them.
Personally, I don't believe in buying kids popsicles to persuade them to stop screaming and kicking on the floor of the KMart.