Citizen Voices

Throughout the primaries, I kept hearing from the pundits, that I would be voting for Hillary Clinton. After all, I am right smack in the middle of Hillary's "demographic". ("Professional, well-educated women who came of age during the modern women's movement.")

I celebrated the significance of a woman (FINALLY) running for president, and along with many women of my generation , could hardly believe that "one of us" was actually a viable contender. At the beginning I tried, I really tried to embrace her candidacy.

Back in the 90's, when "Hillary Bashing" was all the rage, I remained her ardent supporter. I despised the misogyny behind the Hate Hillary movement, and I, for one, welcomed her activism in the White House. As the years passed, however, I was disappointed to see character traits which slowly eroded my faith in her integrity and judgment, and as I watched her in action these past two years, I felt that some disconnect had occurred, and I regretfully came to the conclusion that she would not be my candidate.

Chris
June 07, 2008 at 12:00 AM
Obama's speech was flat out thrilling - as history, as politics, as rhetoric (pick one or all). I watched it a few times and spoke with some friends who did too. I can't remember having a politician give me goosebumps - and I felt a bit sheepish about it really. The guy is good, but he is a politician...He may have overreached in a few places (is he really going to stop global warming?) - but I was pumped and (bring on the smirks and guffaws) - it gave me hope. I'm sure there were plenty of naysayers, cheapshotters and wet towels around when JFK promised a moon shot....Im still looking for a landslide and if McCain keeps deliving those Kinko's backdrop moments we're going to get it.

Diane from Jamul
June 10, 2008 at 05:10 PM
Thanks for a very well-written piece that mirrors my feelings about the democratic primary. I am a 48 year old educated white woman who also really wanted to feel compelled to support Sen. Clinton. It became painful over the course of the never-ending season to watch as her character flaws became so apparent. I am so excited about Obama; yes, he is a politician, but I think his fundamental intelligence and integrity will help point us back in the right direction. I plan to spend the next five months convincing my fellow feminists of the importance of moving past the "Hillary Only" mentality and prevent McCain from digging our country and the world irrepairably deeper into Bush-instigated problems.

Candace from Coronado
June 11, 2008 at 03:36 PM
How to convince our fellow feminist is the problem. I have given it a great deal of thought and have had to understand that my usual "in your face" style probably won't be the best method because most of them have definite opinions, themselves. I mean I have known some of these women since college and they are strong, smart women who usually have open minds. I have been trying to understand what their objections to supporting Obama REALLY are. If you have any ideas, Diane, I would love to hear them.

michael valentine from spring Valley
June 12, 2008 at 12:08 AM
The vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq sank Hillary. Had she not cast that vote, there would have been not much of a difference ..... between Clinton and Obama who have much the same outlook and policies. She would have had the nomination wrapped up on super Tuesday. She would have been on the right side of the issue. It took away one of the advantages of being a woman and being a change to the same old salami feast of the last two hundred thirty years. That a woman wouldn't be the same aggressive politicians that men are. That they would talk things out vs. bomb them into the stone age. That their very female nature would make war the last resort because .... well they are women. I feel certain that this vote was cast in a calculated manner to make her look strong on NATIONAL SECURITY. Far too old school politics for me, to old boy. I am sorry I could not support a candidate, however well qualified, what ever sex, who voted for an immoral, unjustified war of preemption.

Daniel J. Smiechowski from Bay Park
June 12, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Regarding: Obama, McCain have "God" problems:The recent revelations and continuing saga of three surrogates to Presidential contenders McCain and Obama illustrate the high water mark in political philosophy and psychology in the race for The White House. Obama's Pastor of long standing, the Reverend Wright follows the course of psycho-linguistic theory predicated on highly intellectual concepts of human behavior taken from both scientific and empirical data as related to cultural anthropology and the human condition in America. He stands as somewhat of a beacon of the religious left, best exemplified by Father's Berrigan, Groppi and Drinan of a generation ago. The Catholic Vote jumped ship to the Gop in large measure because of the passage of Roe vrs. Wade which legalized abortion and the subsequent ascension of Gay and rights.Prior to roughly 1972 the Catholic vote was relatively reliable to the Democratic Party. Ironically, we are seeing a resurgence in Catholics returning to the Democratic fold due in part to increasing social inequality and the continuing folly of The Iraq Occupation. Father Pfleger, the invited Catholic Priest to Senator Obama's Trinity United Church had in a highly emotional tirade against Senator Hillary Clinton echoed the eloquent words of Senator Robert Kennedy in his historic speech at Cape town where he spoke on the disenfranchisement of America's Polish, Irish and Italian immigrants, those of Jewish faith,and yes, certainly that of the African American experience on the American landscape. Speaking truth to power, both of Obama's surrogates are inviting us to patriotically reflect on America's past behavior.The comments by Senator McCain's surrogate, The Reverend John Hagee can best be defined as the melding of fear and retribution which began at the dawn of man. Taken literally from the bible, it reminds one of the great earthquake in Lisbon on All Saints Day at the time of Voltaire.The irony remains startling. It was the Catholic Church that attributed the disaster to the sins of citizens in this great city. The Philosopher quickly discounted the church and upon his passing was afforded the greatest funeral procession ever in The City of Light. The French Revolution of 1789 soon followed. It remains part of our human condition to evaluate these two presidential contenders on the basis of what exactly God proposes for both the Individual and Country. Regardless of our political and religious views at this time in history we are in the words of The Great Voltaire certainly to die as fools. Daniel J. Smiechowski

Claire June
June 12, 2008 at 05:21 PM
Candace, right on. I am 31 year old, over-educated, feminist, white woman. I, too, supported Clinton in the primary. Now, I support Obama. I am taken aback by the number, especially, of women who were Clinton supporters now go on to say they plan on supporting McCain. Always, I am taken aback: Why? Why would women vote for McCain. It makes no sense to me. For me, I want to see positive social change. As far as I can tell, McCain's voting record shows none of this. I understand being disappointed that Clinton is out, but I do not understand educated, feminist, white women punishing the general population due to said disappointment. So, if anyone can answer my question or offer any founded theories of why a woman would go from supporting Clinton to voting for McCain, I am all ears.

Gloria Penner from KPBS
June 12, 2008 at 10:17 PM
I, too, enjoyed your really well-written piece, and your experience with Clinton supporters reflects my own. Since I am the station's political correspondent, moderator, host, etc. and have been covering politics and interviewing candidates for many years, I've made it a practice to keep my political preferences very private. However, I will say that the support for Barack Obama among my friends and family members who embrace feminism did surprise me. I fully expected that Clinton (and in some cases, McCain) would be their first choice. That didn't happen. The Democrats were worried about Bill. The Republicans were simply bowled over by Obama's message of hope and change, although they are very worried about tax increases. Without question, this is the most intriguing presidential contest I've witnessed thus far. Gloria

Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 02:29 AM
@Daniel J. Smiechowski : "It was the Catholic Church that attributed the disaster to the sins of citizens in this great city." Really? I just opened up my Catechism and didn't see any reference the whole Catholic Church as a matter of faith solemnly define this disaster as an attribute of their sinfulness. Would you care to provide your citation, or, like so many other times lo these many centuries, is this just another unsubstantiated polemic where bigots try to outdo one another?

Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 02:39 AM
@Gloria Penner, Garbo replies. Wow!

Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 06:18 AM
"Are they truly ready to sacrifice the right to reproductive freedom and return to the days when young women often died or were maimed in back alley abortions?" I'm sorry that you, like other anti-life feminists, have deluded yourself into believing that abortions are safe. Women are dying right now because of abortions. The only difference between then and now is that the back-alley butchers have moved to Main Street. Good luck trying to get KPBS to cover this, but women are dying from ruptured uteri, perforated rectums, and torn cervixes, to name but a few of these "safe" procedures' complications. Then there are the abortionists who have no license or suspended licenses, and abortion shops where non-medical personnel perform abortions. Then there are abortion shops, including Planned Parenthood, who cover up for statutory rape, overcharge the state for services, and gleefully collect contributions from racists so that they can target African-Americans for extermination. I can document every one of these issues, but keep telling yourself that abortion is "safe." Thankfully, there are organizations like Feminists for Life who recognize, like Susan B. Anthony before them, that abortion is not a solution to women's inequality but a symptom of it.

Claire June
June 13, 2008 at 08:36 PM
Matthew Please stop with the anti-abortion rhetoric. You've posted on a few places on the Citizen Voices blogs. NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO DO WITH ABORTION. You are not a woman. You do not know what it is to be raped and impregnated, or to be stigmatized because the condom broke. Abortion is not simply a woman issue, but--as a male--you really should not be so fervent in your attempt to make everything about abortion. ALL children should be wanted children. And if you are of the ilk that believes adoption is a reasonable solution, please stop by the high school in which i work because i have seven pregnant teenagers whose children will need a good home. Besides that, all of your "examples" of how abortions are unsafe happen during childbirth as well. So, are you going now going to support that all women should have C-sections or not have children at all? While I am a firm believer in Free Speech, even when the voice is not one I agree with, please, do us all a favor and stick to the topic at hand. It makes for a much more interesting and productive conversation. Thank you. Claire

Claire June
June 13, 2008 at 08:40 PM
Gloria, I am so glad to hear this from you. After conversations with several of my female friends, I was worried about Obama winning the election. Your statement about your female feminist friends supporting Obama takes the edge off my worries. Thank you.

Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 09:38 PM
@Claire June, I'm sorry you didn't all of the original blog post. I will quote (again). Now, I'll type this slowly so you can understand: this are Candace's words. Got it? OK. Here we go: “Are they truly ready to sacrifice the right to reproductive freedom and return to the days when young women often died or were maimed in back alley abortions?” I didn't make this about abortion. Candace did. Her words. Now, I get to quote you: "Please stop with the anti-abortion rhetoric....I am a firm believer in Free Speech..." Do as you say, not as you do. "You are not a woman." And neither were Justices Blacknum, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, & Powell. You don't seem to mind their opinion on the issue, now do you? "You do not know what it is to be raped and impregnated, or to be stigmatized because the condom broke." Actually, yes, I do know what it is to be raped, thank you for asking. I'd share more about my experience, but I choose not to cast my pearls before swine. As to pregnancy, my wife shares the experience with me all the time. And, given that it requires 14 different steps to use a condom effectively, we shouldn't be surprised when it breaks. So, are you admitting that one of the motivations for abortions is that the high-and-mighty contraceptives fail? "you really should not be so fervent in your attempt to make everything about abortion." Again, Candace broached the topic. "ALL children should be wanted children." And the fact that you don't treat all children that way says so much more about side of the baby-killing debate than it says about. "And if you are of the ilk that believes adoption is a reasonable solution, please stop by the high school in which i work because i have seven pregnant teenagers whose children will need a good home." Well, your side of the baby-killing debate talks so much about choice, no one's stopping you from choosing to adopt any one of those seven babies. Or is it one of those cases your side only supports those women who choose to murder and mutilate their bodies and won't get out of bed to support those women who choose. And, BTW, my wife and I are in the process of adopting. Thank you again for asking! "Besides that, all of your 'examples' of how abortions are unsafe happen during childbirth as well. So, are you going now going to support that all women should have C-sections or not have children at all? " Childbirth, while difficult on women's health, isn't inherently mutilative, unless you consider stretch marks & swollen feet on "undue burden." My wife had a C-section, which isn't without its risk either, and that's my point. No one disputes a pregnant mother has to be more careful about her health than she normally is. Abortion, on the other hand, is treated by your side of baby-killing as no more harmful than root canal (that's a direct reference to Gloria Steinem's wisdom on baby-killing, in case you wanted to know). "please, do us all a favor and stick to the topic at hand. It makes for a much more interesting and productive conversation." So, since you've ordained yourself to speak for everyone, let me it again. Candace brought it up, and, therefore it is the topic at hand. A little definition. productive conversation: a dialogue where the other person has the good sense to agree with me, censoring out anyone with the hubris to disagree with me. If you didn't want me to say anything, well, it is you who responded to me, argued your anti-life rhetoric, telling me under no uncertain terms, because I'm a man, I should shut up. Anti-lifer, heal thyself.

Claire June
June 13, 2008 at 10:01 PM
Matt Just need to point out two flaws in your response to me: 1. I wrote "raped AND impregnated;" 2. I also wrote "Abortion is NOT simply a woman issue." I should have been clearer on the issue with condoms. First time I had consensual sex, found out that hard way that I am allergic to latex...condom broke. So, reading the directions, which I actually did, did me no good. The non-consensual time before that, my father didn't use one. I was lucky that I was not impregnated. So, thanks Matt for your sensitivity. I am pro-choice, and pro-life. Unlike you, I am about people being able to make their own choices. If you don't like abortions, don't have one, but don't force the raped and down trodden to be punished because of your views. Compassion makes the world a better place. Thanks. I've said my peace. I will no longer be following this strand.

Matthew C. Scallon
June 13, 2008 at 10:35 PM
@Claire June, well, I haven't said my piece. If abortion is not simply a "woman issue (sic)," then you should have no issue with a man chiming in. Since you did, do, will take umbridge with us men expressing our thoughts, well, again, heal thyself. As one who was raped, I have more knowledge about that than I've ever cared to. The fact that you didn't take into account that men can indeed be raped showed some insensitivity on your part. I'm sorry you were raped. I hope that, when you said, "thanks Matt for your sensitivity," you weren't being sarcastic. You can't be both pro-life and anti-life. You can't say, on the one hand, human life is sacred and should be protected at all costs, especially the vulnerable pre-born, and, on the other hand, if you want to kill that human being, vulnerable though she may be, that's your choice, and I'm not going to interfere, and I'm going to make certain that the taxpayers pay for the killing. They are incompatible concepts. To that end, I am as supportive of those women who choose not to have abortions as your side is of those women who choose to have abortions, and I am as supportive of those women who choose to have abortions as your side is of those women who choose not to have abortions. If that be what your mean by being "pro-choice, and pro-life," then I'm as "pro-choice" as you are, although I'm not ready to put that on a bumper sticker just yet. One of these days, I'd love to introduce you to the children who were conceived as a result of rape. I'd love also to introduce you to their mothers. Maybe, just maybe, your side could stop using their children as fodder for your baby-killing industry's profits; they really don't appreciate it. And they also want you to stop using their experience as an excuse for your cause. Thank you.

michael valentine from spring Valley
June 14, 2008 at 12:16 AM
It is amazing the presumptions that some people make. Some people would argue for fathers' rights for rapist. Some people would stick their noses in other peoples business. As if they had some mandate to decide what people should and shouldn't do. As if they were morally superior is some way. They are not. Mr. Scallon has done Obama a favor here. I want all of Hillary's disillusioned supporters to open their eyes and look at the eye popping flip-flops that McCain has undergone in the last six months. He used to support a woman's right to chose. No longer is that his view. In his drive to the right to secure the base of the Republican Party's nomination he has shed the title of Maverick and picked up the torch for every cause that is conservative. As everyone who takes an interest knows, there will be Supreme Court Appointments to be made in the next administration. This week the Hight Court decided on a 5 to 4 ruling that a President can not wave the rights of individuals, even individuals who are suspected of terrorist acts have rights. Our civil rights, the right to chose, even the right to redress wrongs in court, are at risk should a Republican be elected President.

Matthew C. Scallon
June 15, 2008 at 02:28 AM
@michael valentine, you give me far too much credit, both in moral superiority and aid to the Obama campaign. I would imagine that members of a civilized society don't want to see innocent people be killed. If this be not so any longer, then those who still hold to the more civilized position would be, by definition, morally superior to those want innocent people to be killed, but only because the latter's morals have declined. So far as "flip flop" is concerned, McCain's record on the right to life has been consistent in that he's always opposed abortion in all legislative acts. Insofar as the courts are concerned, he did oppose overturning "Roe" but not supports overturning it. If you want call a "flip flop," but a rather minor one. Now, Obama, in the flip-flop department, claims that he would have supported the Born Alive Infant Protection Act if he could have voted on it. The funny thing is that he killed the exact same bill when he was a committee chairman in the Illinois Assembly (I'm originally from Illinois; I follow politics back home regularly). So, flip-flop on overturning "Roe" versus flip-flop on giving health care to citizens born alive from a botched abortion: which one's bigger? I agree with you on one thing: the Supreme Court justices --two to three, according to court watchers-- nominated by this coming Administration will determine whether baby-killing is the land of the land or states and their citizens can decide whether or not they prefer a culture of death or a culture of life. I'm not a Pollyanna, and I know what side this state prefers, thanks to two counties. Nonetheless, I'm hopeful that other states won't follow this state's example and get their gearbox unstuck from stupid.

Matthew C. Scallon
June 15, 2008 at 02:52 AM
@michael valentine, P.S., no one in this forum, including myself, advocates "fathers’ rights for rapist." Perhaps it's one of the voices in your head. Might I recommend Prozac? In the meantime, please refrain from red herrings.

michael valentine from spring Valley
June 15, 2008 at 03:30 AM
The red herring is McCain. The red herring is that Republicans give a hoot about life at all once it is born. McCain's insane national security policy, a continuation of the Bush blunders, would have America's troops held captive in an immoral and unjustified war of preemption predicated on lies. Every life lost in this unneeded and unjustified war a moral war crime. His continued support of the occupation of a hostile nation without a plan for relief of the troops shows his lack of support for the troops. As if his lack of support for a real G.I. Bill, the Webb bill didn't show his lack of support for the troops. Talk is cheap. Without a relief plan the troops who are currently serving, some having served 2, 3, 4 or even 5 tours of duty in Iraq/Afghanistan, they will continue to rotate in and out until everyone has PTSD. Is that supporting the troops? The fact that McCain lacks ability to have diplomatic talks with nations we are in conflict with condemns the troops to more immoral wars. Anyone who would subject a rape victim to carry a rapist baby to term is an unfeeling brut. When you carry the baby Matthew then you can make the choice. Let me tell you something. As a prison guard I've heard rapist talking among themselves. They shouldn't be allowed to reproduce. If your feelings are hurt then mind your own business and don't tell women what to do with their bodies. Speaking of killing innocent people, how many hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed by the Republican Administration of Bush? Don't talk to me of voices in my head, I hear the cries of the war dead in a land of oil. I hear the same false drums of war for Iran. I hear the voices of millions of AIDs victims in Africa who could have avoided the disease if only the Bush Administration didn't forbid the use of American aid for any program that mentions the use of condoms because of his so-called fundamentalist values. Yes, I see where the Republicans are a pillar of moral superiority. I hear the voices of the distressed veterans who have committed suicide because a Republican Administration swept them under the table.

Matthew C. Scallon
June 16, 2008 at 06:49 PM
@michael valentine: "Anyone who would subject a rape victim to carry a rapist baby to term is an unfeeling brut." I guess you missed the part where I said I was raped (I prefer the term "survivor" over "victim" but whatever). It's just because of your ad hominem that I said I didn't want to cast my pearls before swine. After all, anyone who dares protect the pre-born from the abortion industry is painted by your side of the baby-killing debate with the same broad brush, no matter what their previous life circumstances may be. I speak on behalf of those mothers who have had children of a result of rape because, as a survivor myself, I share in their pain over the crime comitted against them and because, for your side's talk of choice, your side doesn't lift so much a pinky to help them, leaving it to us pro-lifers to do all the heavy lifting (again). Most of the criticisms of the Bush Administration are well and good. In fact, as a pro-life Democrat, I would agree with you on most of these issues (surprised?). But, frankly, as one who supports the wholesale slaughter of 40 million of our fellow human beings by the abortion industry, it is not for you or anyone else from your side of the baby-killing debate to stand in high and mighty judgement of the Bush Administration, since your side, like the Bush Administration, supports killing human beings. I, as pro-life Democrat, have the moral authority to criticize Bush's killings in Iraq, since I, unlike your side, am consistent. Next time you call a rape survivor "an unfeeling brut," maybe one of those voices in your head could shake some sense into you before you write something else equally stupid.

michael valentine from spring Valley
June 16, 2008 at 07:36 PM
Must have been your name that threw me off Matthew. Are you a man?

michael valentine from spring Valley
June 16, 2008 at 07:45 PM
Where did you say you were a rape survivor Matthew? Where do you get off telling women what to do with their life's while you pretend to be a woman? You are a very disturbed individual.

Matthew C. Scallon
June 16, 2008 at 09:13 PM
@michael valentine: "Where did you say you were a rape survivor Matthew?" Just because I prefessed my comment to Claire June doesn't mean you can't read it also. I will quote my response to her: “'You are not a woman.'” And neither were Justices Blacknum, Burger, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall, & Powell. You don’t seem to mind their opinion on the issue, now do you?" "'You do not know what it is to be raped and impregnated, or to be stigmatized because the condom broke.'" Actually, yes, I do know what it is to be raped, thank you for asking. I’d share more about my experience, but I choose not to cast my pearls before swine. As to pregnancy, my wife shares the experience with me all the time. And, given that it requires 14 different steps to use a condom effectively, we shouldn’t be surprised when it breaks. So, are you admitting that one of the motivations for abortions is that the high-and-mighty contraceptives fail? " End quote. Quoting you: "Where do you get off telling women what to do with their life’s while you pretend to be a woman?" I've never told women what to do, other than telling them to keep convincing themselves that the unsafe abortion procedures are in fact safe, and I was being sarcastic there. You must have some comprehension issues, or you're just not paying attention. As to pretending to be a woman, unless that's some kind of sexist dig at men who survive rape, I never claimed anywhere to be a woman. Must be those voices in your head, again. Quoting you: "You are a very disturbed individual." Well, at least I know how to read. Your excuse?

diane
June 17, 2008 at 05:18 AM
wouldn't this work better if we just ignored "matthew" and continued the intelligent discussion we were enjoying?

Matthew C. Scallon
June 17, 2008 at 05:21 AM
@diane, an echo chamber is not a discussion. That's a concept which confuses your side.

athard from Iowa
June 19, 2008 at 09:21 PM
Obama is undoubtedly a very convincing and polished speaker. However, he does tend to evade questions. In a way, he is doing well by not being baited by reporters, but sometimes it is frustrating. Especially when you want to hear what he has to say about certain issues or rumors that are spread about him.