To the Female Clinton Supporters Who are Considering Voting for McCain or Sitting it Out

Consider this an open letter.  I'm a male, so I can only begin to appreciate your disappointment and frustration.  And I understand why, at this stage, you'd rather sit it out in November.  I cannot understand for the life of me why you would vote for McCain since most of his positions are 180 degrees from Clinton's.  I think that's what they call "cutting your nose to spite your face."  Whatever choice you're contemplating, my sincerest plea is this:

Don't do it.  Please, don't do it.

If you really believed in what Hillary Clinton stands for and you didn't support her just to see a woman in the White House, there are a number of reasons why you should be leery of "President McCain."

On issues related to abortion and even birth control and sex education, McCain is as ideological as any Operation Rescue activist crawling around in front of an abortion clinic.

You want to know what's coming with a McCain presidency? How about the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. I'm not kidding. The latest case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court on abortion made it clear that the two newest justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, will vote for substantial incursions into abortion rights, if not their outright elimination. It turns out that Roe isn't a "super-duper" precedent after all. It's now hanging by the thread of 87-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens' continued vitality.

Due to McCain's reputation as a maverick, many voters seem to attach more moderate abortion views to him. In Florida's primary, for example, 45 percent of those Republicans who said abortion should be legal voted for McCain. Whereas the prochoice Rudy Giuliani won over only 19 percent of the prochoice Republican vote.

But McCain's voting record is solidly antichoice. He said directly in South Carolina that Roe "should be overturned" and strongly reiterates that position on his campaign Web site. He told the American Conservative Union that one of the three most important goals that he wants to achieve as president is to promote "a nation of traditional values that protects the rights of the unborn."

In accordance with these views, McCain promises to "nominate strict constructionist judges," which is code for "will overturn Roe if given half a chance." . . .

An intelligent person might think that someone as rabidly antiabortion as McCain would be backing approaches to prevent unwanted pregnancies, thereby, ipso facto, fewer abortions. Well, think again.

McCain is an antagonist of sensible family planning and effective sex education. In 2005, he voted "no" on a $100-million allocation for preventive health care services targeted at reducing unintended pregnancies, particularly teen pregnancies. In 2006, he voted against funding for comprehensive, medically accurate sex education for teens.

It would be the epitome of irony if by your lack of participation or by your support of McCain you end up electing a President who will have a shot at limiting the reproduction rights women have fought long and hard to earn and keep.

And if that wasn't enough, think about what you'll be doing to millions - maybe billion - of women across the globe.

McCain also supports the global gag rule - probably the most backward foreign policy initiative since the importation of slaves. This is the policy that bars foreign family planning organizations from receiving U.S. funds if the group in any way advises clients on abortion as an option or advocates for legal abortion - even when using their own funds. We know that population control and family planning is the only way for Third World nations to advance, yet the United States and its antiabortion zealots have put a foot on the neck of the most effective groups.

More info here, here,

“During his 25 years in office, Sen. McCain has consistently voted to block low-income women’s access to birth control,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan said in a statement Friday. “Voters need to know that John McCain is not only against abortion, he is against birth control.” 

and here.

As St. Paul Mayor Chris Coleman, an enthusiastic Clinton backer,said this week, “You don’t spend your life fighting for women’s rights and then vote for Sen. McCain.”

The thing is, staying at home, or voting for Clinton via write-in is just as counterproductive as voting for McCain.

So, please, don't do it.

Comments

[La Ventanita]

If you really believed in what Hillary Clinton stands for and you didn't support her just to see a woman in the White House

That my friend, is one huge leap of an assumption...and your problem at the same time. Most female Clintonites I know, where there out of a feminist spirit, not ideology..including my advisor.

[El Loco]

There are people who voted for Clinton because she is a woman and for Obama because he's black. And there are people who didn't vote for them or voted against them for exactly the same reasons. There's nothing you can do about those.

I'm writing to the ones for whom these things were extra motivation and not the main thing. I have a female P.R. friend who right now won't vote because she wanted to see a woman win. Between now and November she'll see the error of her way and will vote for Obama. I know her well enough to know.

I'm thinking about people like my wife, a white gringa, who was rooting for Hillary and it's really disappointed that she lost.
Her exact words were "now I know that this country would rather see a black man in the White House before seeing a woman of any color win." But she also knows what McCain stands for in some critical issues for her. Which is why she will vote for Obama.

[Melek]

Roberto,

I respect your opinion. However, if I did not know better, I could say that you are resorting to fear and scare tactics to dissuade women who may consider voting for McCain to vote for Obama instead, by using the pro-choice & abortion issues ...

IMHO, and as I have expressed here before, I strongly believe that abortion as well as same sex marriage should be left out of politics ... these are individual moral issues. However, I don't foresee Roe being overturned any time soon. You must keep in mind that unless something out of this world happens, even if McCain ends up as our President, Congress will remain in control of the Democrats ... so when the time comes to appoint new judges ... McCain would have to nominate judges who will get approved.

I also believe that today, this country is quite ready to have either a woman or any other minority as President. However, by the same token, a candidate's gender or race should not override necessary qualifications to do the job! IMHO, it's a sad day when someone is solely willing to cast their vote on gender, race or religion. Like you stated, I also hope that between now and November, people look beyond the "labels", packaging, etc. and study the "substance" ... and educate themselves about all the issues before voting!

I wish you well :) Melek

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves." ~ W. Boetcker

[El Loco]

Melek,

I don't think that pointing to McCain's position with regard to reproductive rights qualifies as scaremongering. For a lot of women - and men - who supported Hillary & Obama, that's an important issue. My point is that if you supported Hillary for her position on the issues and not just for her gender, it makes little sense if any to consider voting for McCain.

Of course, that depends on each woman's priorities. It may well be that reproductive rights is less of an issue to them than, say, taxes and the economy.

to dissuade women who may consider voting for McCain to vote for Obama instead, by using the pro-choice & abortion issues

Assuming that was my goal - which it wasn't - I do find it interesting that you raise this issue when the Christian conservative right has been using this same issue as a wedge for as long as I can remember.

However, I don't foresee Roe being overturned any time soon. You must keep in mind that unless something out of this world happens, even if McCain ends up as our President, Congress will remain in control of the Democrats ... so when the time comes to appoint new judges ... McCain would have to nominate judges who will get approved.

Not necessarily. Judges Alito and Roberts were confirmed by a Republican Senate, but they also received Democratic support. And we see how that turned out. And even if Roe is not overturned, the protections in Casey may be significantly scaled back.

[Marc S.]

Funny how it's turned into a women of any color vs an black (of any gender). Sure it was a race, but not to a who's first first, finish line. It's an ideological race to "the future" of America.

The desperation to put a lying woman in office assuming that another (more honest) woman will never get another chance is understood, but sad. My condolences to all of you that are so disappointed.

Feinstein, Pelosi, Lincoln (also form Arkansas) are all great. There will be others. Unity now is imperative.

Please,please, listen to Obama before you vote McCain or even worse sit out. Woman and blacks fought hard for those rights. Many died, even. Use those rights wisely.

Remember, Obama paid his respect to her, and went to that meeting. Yes he had to, but he could have been a misogynistic knucklehead about it, and say "I'm thinking about it as a hiring."

He's smarter than that, and she deserves much more respect than that.

And he will continue to give it to her, and all America women.

[El Loco]

Marc,

I don't think you're helping here when you say [t]he desperation to put a lying woman in office assuming that another (more honest) woman will never get another chance is understood, but sad.

Other than the "sniper fire" anecdote, on which you really have to be disingenuous to believe that was just a "mere exaggeration," I really can't say that she has outright lied. Spinning things to an extreme, yes, but I can't say she has lied.

[Marc S.]

Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I was talking about her sometimes tendency to "tweak" the truth to match audiences.
Near the end she was running like she was Willie Stark from "all the Kings Men".

I wanted her to win 18 months ago. It was the erosion of her public persona that I found so disappointing.

I was really just pointing out that there are other excellent women in the political arena.

She or one of those mentioned above, will probably be president someday.

I really hope that I get to see that. Unfortunately it won't be for four or eight years.

But right now, there is a another race to be won.