...surprising are those that are captive of the SCLM narrative.

Before the convention, Obama held a six point lead among women, and McCain had a six point lead among men, in the Gallup tracking poll. Unsurprisingly, women were less disposed to see Palin positively than men because women are less favorably disposed toward McCain than men.

Oh, and do us a favor -- don't come here citing three day old polls (Gallup was conducted on Aug 29th) as if they have any significance. The most important number in the polls is the "don't know enough about Palin" numbers....the Gallup poll you cite was based on only 29% of respondents -- 51% had never heard of Palin, and 20% were "unsure".

Don't come here and tell other posters and commentators what to do. As one of the four people who started Corrente, I do not appreciate the tone you have brought to our comment threads. I don't mind pointed, angry, shrill, or argumentative posts; I do mind the consistent tone which you exude that anyone who disagrees with you, or the majority drift at Corrente of late, is stupid, a troll or a tool.

It's probably too early to draw any conclusions from polls, most of all because Sarah Palin was picked by McCain without any sort of actual vetting process, or does that observation make me a sexist? Truth to tell, I'm not interested in your opinion of my opinion, but feel free to give it. Just try not to be personally insulting, and that's what it is when you seek to marginalize people by labelling them. Please note the question mark next to the word "surprising."

I don't know who Gallup polls but those of us with blogs and email addresses *know* that a significant number of Hillary supporters moved to McCain/Palin. I can't remember who I read who said that it was about time that women just voted for women whether they were good, bad, criminal or stupid. (I don't think Palin is bad, criminal or stupid.) It's the way African Americans have voted for years. Remember Marion Barry? So, why not vote for Palin, as long s you support down ticket Dems that will counter act any stupid anti-choice legislation? It will finally put start getting women recognized and not seen as some rare, exotic flower. I'm even tempted to vote for her myself.
Yep, the Democrats are in a hole and haven't learn to stop digging.
'gits!

Come together at The Confluence

Leah, Paul has done a lot of analysis on polling. Let's show a little respect. If he says you ought to wait, *trust* him on this. Many of us on blogs and coalition sites have seen commenter's secret glee in McCain's choice. It may not be what most Correntians want to hear but that is the simple truth. Obama is going to lose this election, of that there is no longer any doubt. Palin was selected to solidify McCain's evangelical base but she also represents a way for women to make a protest vote against the DNC. Many of us were only planning to vote for downticket Dems and still are. Of one thing you can be absolutely sure: we are not now or ever will be voting for Obama. The DNC has lost its moral authority to whip us into doing so. There is no argument that they or you or anyone else can make to change our minds. Nah. Gah. Happen.
Now some of us have a reason to vote for the top of the ticket albeit for a Republican. We know all of the reasons why we shouldn't vote for McCain. None of us are stupid. But we have to draw the line on process manipulation and misogyny in the Democratic party. McCain just gave us cover. He was going to win anyway. Now, he'll win by greater margins.
I'm not telling anyone how to vote or who to scold but IMHO, railing at fellow Democrats because they refuse to eat their poison is missing the big picture: Dems are now in danger of losing the big gains they anticipated in Congress because the evangelicals are now motivated to go to the polls. The Republicans are poised not to take the Oval Office but many seats in Congress. If that upsets you. there is no one to blame but the DNC for this conundrum and Paul is just a messenger. Our evidence may be anecdotal at this point but wait a week. When it comes to presidential elections, Republicans are masters. Palin is no pushover or they never would have let her near a lectern.
I don't get involved in intrablog disagreements, especially when it isn't my blog, but I hate to see this stuff. To me, it is one more sure sign that Obama is bad news. One of the laws of thermodynamics, a law by which our universe depends, is that stability is the sum of making bonds and reducing disorder. Obama is instability squared. No good can come of his nomination or election. We are already witnessing his effects in interpersonal relationships. It can only get worse.
Come together at The Confluence

Really? Voted for any African-American no matter whether said candidate was bad, criminal or stupid.

And if I note that your statement is a deeply racist one, are you going to go away and spend the next twenty-five years of your life traumatized because someone called you a racist.

I'm not, by the way, calling you a racist, but American racism was never only the result of the energies and passions expended by certifiable racists. Lynching was an institution because white folks across the south who wouldn't have thought of doing the deed themselves or of showing up at one not only tolerated it, but depended on it, to keep black folks in their rightful place, at the bottom of society, as befit their status of being 3/5ths human.

And in the last three to four decades, the Republican party and the radical right have retooled all the major tropes of American racism to make them kinder and gentler, but they are still racist tropes.

It also happens not to be true. When African-Americans sought to be allowed to vote, and try and remember that it wasn't until the 1970s that the right of AA's to vote was respected in the south in any meaningful way, there were no black candidates to vote for. And there were precious few black candidates for office in the rest of the country, too.

And it was the Republican party and the rightwing movement which has pushed back against voting rights guarantees, which has allowed for the actual stealing of elections, national elections. You dare to come here and make a statement like that in the face of the thousands and thousands of African-Americans who were struck from the Florida voter roll on the basis of being felons. We know how that was accomplished; the company doing the voter roll checks were told to remove the name of any African-American voter who shared either a first or last name with a felon; think about that for a moment. And the instruction came from the office of Katherine Harris.

And before anyone reminds me of the fact that the Democratic congress refused to back a move by the black caucus to question the Florida results, after the Supreme Court had handed the election to Bush Jr, I agree that it was a terrible moment, but I also understand that it had become politically impossible to take the country in that direction. I'm sure that Al Gore, who was forced to preside at that Senate session was bleeding inside.

The history of the Democratic Party in the second half of the 20th century is clear; it rid itself of the last vestiges of racism at great political cost to itself. And African-Americans have rewarded the Democrats by being one of their most loyal constituencies. During the same period, the Republican Party shat repeatedly on the mantle of Lincoln which was its own patrimony, to become the party of racial reaction, committed to overturning many of the most important gains of the civil rights movement.

I look forward, goldberry, to your capsule history of the reconstruction, in which freed black slaves, unready for freedom, manipulated by outside agitators from up north determined to plunder the south, lord it over white folks, and being incompetent, reinforce prejudice, resulting in strained racial relationships, which end up in institutionalized segregation, none of which would have happened if White folks in the south had been allowed to bring along their unready-for-freedom slaves, until they were truly ready for the rights and privileges that come with being having earned the right to be considered fully human.

As for your thoughts about voting for McCain, by all means, be my guest. I think he's definitely your man, along with that feisty female maverick, Sarah Palin. And good luck on that New Democratic Party of yours. I'll be working hard to make sure that no one gets fooled into the notion that you and yours are either liberal or progressive. But I think you might have a real future among the so-called Reagan Democrats, especially the ones who have remained registered Republicans.

I guess this is as good a time as any to make the announcement, and speaking only for myself, I am not, I repeat, NOT, PUMA-friendly. My attitude is the result of having read what they are actually saying on their websites. And before anyone demands examples and links, don't worry, they are coming. During the course of the week, I intend to do a series of posts analyzing what I've found at places like The Confluence.

What a nice present your post is to those of us who are still grieving over the loss of Stephanie Tubbs Smith. Thought experiment, goldberry. Try and imagine the reaction of Representative Tubbs Smith to reading your post, or that of John Lewis. One of my posts is going to be on the extraordinary response of some of the PUMAS to Barack Obama's presence at her memorial

Troll prophylactic; I do recognize there are corrupt black politicians; we have an example in Detroit right now. That fact does not change anything I've said about this amazing comment by goldberry.

let's not assume there are no such things as republican, libertarian, and highly conservative black voters who are more than happy to support wars of choice, anti-feminist legislation, hate atheism, etc.

my grandmother had a policy: register in the party in power. her theory went like this: if you are whatever the president is, you're less likely to be targeted by the IRS. and she never was.

diversity means the freedom to embrace all sorts of things, and real progressives should support it.

I am only commenting on what another blog has said and to be quite honest, I think the blogger has a good point. The blogger was commenting on african american political strategy. When Marion Barry got caught doing crack with a prostitute, WE thought his career was over. But AAs in DC didn't want anyone telling them who they could or couldn't vote for. You can try to hide behind some racist accusation to deflect this but I think there's some truth to it. When it comes to women, maybe it's time we just vote for them come hell or high water. That way they are no longer unusual and we can start to concentrate on whether they would be good politicians.
This whole election season has been about identity politics. Who is to say that a woman voting for a woman is worse than an african american who turned down the best candidate the Dems had to vote for another african american?
One other thing, Leah, PUMAs are not racists. We comment on what we see. Others interpret that. But we have been very busy removing racist remarks from our sites and racist blogs from our coalitions. If you see something on any of our sites that smack of racism, you are encouraged to report it to us immediately. However, attempting to squelch a conversation about the use of race as a weapon because you have succumbed to the perception management of the subject, just makes you less credible in our eyes.
Obama has a lot of atoning to do towards the african american community. He has used them shamelessly. BTW, we have many african americans in our coalition who see things as WE do, not as YOU do. Maybe you should listen to them for a change. Our View with Patsy and Sugar
Come together at The Confluence

I think the (legitimate) point goldberry was raising is essentialism--voting purely on identity politics (race, sex, or perhaps class)--and its role in Democratic politics. The Marion Berry comment was perhaps unfortunate, but there's no question (as Leah suggests) that white people in the Democratic party have been voting their identity politics for most of the history of the party going back to Thomas Jefferson. It just doesn't look so clearly like white identity politics, because there are still so few Dem candidates of color. Same goes for male identity politics, since American politics has been characterized by a masculinist focus on wars of empire and who can out-butch the other candidate, but that gendering of politics has been hidden by the almost total dominance of male candidates in both parties. So, why are there only patronizing comments about "voting with their vaginas" or "it's a black thing"? Gee, I wonder...although this year I will say that there are very few patronizing comments about African Americans voting for Obama from the left (although they're there for sure on the right.) On the other hand, those patronizing comments about "voting with their vaginas" were coming from fellow Democrats starting last winter, around the time of the first caucuses and primaries. Hillary Clinton and her voters have been fundamentally and continually disrespected from within their own party.

The bottom line is that there are still far, far too few women candidates in either party. Because of the Demcratic party-sanctioned trashing of Hillary Clinton, many feminists are starting to reconsider (more positively) the essentialist argument that more women in office will better for American politics and American women, and the reality is that liberal self-identifying feminists will never be a majority of women. Why shouldn't conservative or even right-wing women be represented by people who look like them? Shouldn't feminism be big enough to applaud the achievements of Sarah Palin even while it points to her antifeminist and anti-family policies? Even some of my most ardent Obama-supporting friends have pointed out the possible silver lining that if McCain/Palin wins, she might help people come to see working mothers in a different light--and she could perhaps accomplish more on that end *because* of her ideological positions rather than in spite of them. (That is, the Dr. Lauras of the world might hold their fire in ways they'd never hold back on a liberal Dem with the same family background.)

Finally, since this post was originally about gender and polls about Palin, I'd just like to say that like Paul, I'm not surprised by the results (and not just because academic feminists like me and those who comment on my blog will never show up in the polling!) And as I have argued there, Palin was not about picking off PUMAs, she's all about making the evangelical and cultural conservative base happy, as well as encouraging independent and Republican women to take another look at McCain and restoring the "Maverick" brand. But the discussion at most so-called "progressive" blogs, which is all about Palin's voice, hair, body, beauty-pageant experience, leaking amniotic fluid, etc. may well benefit McCain by supressing the Dem women's vote. With so-called feminist "friends" like these, who needs enemies?

And unless the Democratic party is recommiting itself to a thoroughly male slate of candidates from here on out and is abandoning entirely its feminist policies and principles, we can hardly complain when Republicans roll out the same sexist attacks on our candidates. (Even those "good girls" who don't dare to run against men in a primary race...)

Lynchings weren't only for the south.

But then, we historically were pretty big on that kind of thing up here. At least we are mildly embarrased about it now....

A very disturbing comment thread here, to be sure! We went from Palin to Marion Barry to lynchings and not even a speed bump in between....

Oh, btw, I think anybody who votes for McCain because he chose Palin has got some serious cognitive dissonance going on. Over the last week I went from 80% sure I wouldn't vote at all to 75% sure I'm going to hold my gag reflex down and vote for Obama, seeing as how I now believe the Obamacans have lost and we may get our FKD party back after all. And as Gov. Rendell recently said, even a tepid vote counts.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Feminist women would not be well served by McCain/Palin. We probably won't be that much better served by Obama/Biden--what's going on with that equal pay bill that the congressional Dems have been sitting on for the last several months?--but we'll surely see the continuation of Bush's regressive policies under McCain/Palin. It stinks, but once again, that's what we're left with because there are so few national Democratic women candidates. I say (reluctantly) vote for Obama, but get to work electing more women in your state to congress, the Senate, and into the governor's mansion, so that we can develop got a deeper bench.

I can't get on board with the Trotskyite fantasy that if Obama loses, it will purge him and his supporters from the party and clear the way for a Clinton triumph in 2012. I understand where it's coming from, but it's crazy talk. (Although it will doom Obama, most likely: Dems are totally unforgiving of their losers, and they haven't given a previous loser a second nomination since Adlai Stevenson.)

Anyone remember Al Gore, and how he was totally not progressive and Republican and there was no difference between him and Bush? So let's all go vote for Nader, because it doesn't matter anyway?

'if i were a woman i'd be voting for mcshame/palin???wtf?'

please, spin that out a little better, so i can understand. wtf good is a show of solidarity, if voting for them means a loss of abortion/body rights, equal pay, programs that advance the feminist agenda, etc...

i don't understand your logic at all. a protest vote and 5.99$ wil buy you a cup of coffee at starbucks, yo?

I thought I made that quite clear. I don't believe in calling people racists, because it's meaningless, and it betrays a total misunderstanding about the history of racism in this country and the way that it has worked fairly consistently over the several American centuries.

Nor have I ever told anyone how to vote, nor railed at anyone for questioning the Democratic Party. But unlike human beings, not all forms of questioning enjoy an intrinsic equality. Don't try and put me in a convenient box that flatters your point of view.

When I said I think that based on posts and comments of yours that I've read, McCain/Palin is a good fit for you, I meant it. I wasn't telling you how to vote. I wasn't chastising you for not voting for Obama. Nor was I accusing PUMAs of being racists. As I tried to make clear. That you have African-American members only points to exactly what CD was saying. It is also true that Republicans have African-Americans who vote for them, and who appear fairly regularly as spokespeople. That is a good thing. As is the fact that the Republican Party has nurtured a good many female politicians of their own. BTW, have you ever thought of doing a comparison of how many AA hold office compared with women, especially at the higher levels of government? How many woman governors are there, compared with how many AA governors? I think to call women politicians "exotic" at this point is nonsense. Which doesn't mean that there isn't much work to be done. On the other hand, I think someone like Ward Connerly has done enormous damage to the most vulnerable members of the African-American community, and his attacks on affirmative action aren't good for either women or for Hispanics and other minorities, either. And I think the Independent Woman's Forum is a nightmare both for the cause of woman's equality, and to all the liberal progressive values I support, and they love to claim the mantle of feminism, even as they work to destroy it, and to shore up patriarchy.

You made a generalized statement about the way African-Americans vote that was insulting, but most importantly, untrue. You made it in a generalized way, and then pointed to Marion Berry as an example. Yes, there is some truth to what you say, but in general, the situation in DC is much more complicated than you indicate and there is the stark irrefutable fact that African-Americans have been voting for white folks for years.

I'm not being cute when I say I don't think you are a racist. In fact, I'm prepared to say that there are no more racists in American, because no one wants to be known as such, not even David Duke. That does not mean that racism has been squeezed out of the system, out of the social and economic structure, nor out American discourse.

I'm sorry that I don't have any more time to engage in discussion here, I'm cooking for a crowd today. I will return and try and answer some of the other comments, like Historiann's.

Paul_L,

I think I can see where you're coming from when you counsel that women should vote for any woman rather than no woman. Seen in that light identity politics can make sense.

But if you look at your argument from another point of view, you may be able to see why a lot of women will disagree with you. What you seem to be saying is that a woman SHOULD (not just could) discard all other criteria for voting in favor of voting her gender, her anatomy. That kind of uncritical identity politics doesn't make sense at all, in my opinion.

There may be times when voting gender-only is rational, and quite a few people seem to think that time is right now. But I can't agree because I think that the woman in question would be very likely to become President, and despite hopes of some to the contrary, no number of down-ticket Democrats will be able to counterbalance extreme conservatives in the White House for another 4 years. Look at what happened during the last 2 years with a Democrat controlled Congress.

I don't know if you had a chance to read this Stanley Fish piece:
When ‘Identity Politics’ Is Rational
http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/17...

And definitely take the time to read Anglachel's piece from yesterday:
With Friends Like These
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/08/w...

imho

"I’m not being cute when I say I don’t think you are a racist. In fact, I’m prepared to say that there are no more racists in American, because no one wants to be known as such, not even David Duke. That does not mean that racism has been squeezed out of the system, out of the social and economic structure, nor out American discourse.

Conflating those two sentences "...I don't think you are a racist. ...there are no racists in America" is pernicious and too cute by half. It also was one of the implied OFB messages to Clinton voters "you don't even know you are a racist". Bah!

There are racists in America, to say there aren't is an insult to the intelligence. When people say or do racist things as a pattern (because, all together now, "we all do racist things once in a while, we just can't help it"), they are racists. To deny that is to deny the English language. If the point is more meta or complicated then you need to explain a heckuva lot more what you mean because this is just a tossoff line.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

If I didn't see the snark I apologize, maybe I don't have enough of some previous backstory and just mentally combined that phrase with a previous sentence.

"And if I note that your statement is a deeply racist one, are you going to go away and spend the next twenty-five years of your life traumatized because someone called you a racist.

I’m not, by the way, calling you a racist, but American racism was never only the result of the energies and passions expended by certifiable racists."

It is interesting that I disagree with Paul's (and Goldberry's) point about voting for McCain/Palin, since I don't believe that two wrongs make a right (Obama got where he is by many, many wrongs, that doesn't mean we should all vote for McCain/Palin out of spite or only because she is a woman). But I just really do not like these wild racism charges. Been there, done that. There are plenty of better ways to combat the wrong-headed "Vote for McCain/Palin combo because she's a woman and that will show'em" idea without going there.

Uh, anyway, is there a point where we can stop eating our own?

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

It's curious to see how attitudes have changed on Corrente. In these two posts commenters here had no trouble criticizing a woman politician.

Seating FL & MI delegates, exorcising Donna Brazile and fixing primaries

How to challenge Donna Brazile's superdelegate status

Lambert was talking about challenges to her in the DNC and Goldberry commented:

OMG, if the DNC is “in a dither” over the calls and letters now, just wait til the weekend. It will be a frickin’ deluge. I had no idea that there was a way to get rid of her sorry ass. There is a score to settle here. First Donna, then Dean.

Other comments:

Her nonsense during the primaries should not go unpunished.

Donna Brazile deserves to be punished. I would be happy to contribute to the effort in returning the favour of kicking her out of the party.

At least she didn't get a pass because she's a woman.

catastrophe for Democrats. You and I and Goldberry know that Dems are better on women's issues by far. But our non-political friends are hearing nothing but non-stop attacks on women - first on Clinton and now on Palin - by Democrats. To make matters worse, those same people complaining about the chicks in the race, are the same ones who use charges of racism against anyone who criticizes the precious.

Again - this isn't about the specifics which can be endlessly debated. It's about the overall sound of this campaign and what's coming out of the left is a lot of hate and a lot of misogyny.

The Obama campaign and the bigoted chatter out of his supporters is a catastrophe for the Democrats.

against the entrenched privileges of men overcome my common sense.

Paul, I do not know what to say to you; IIRC you are yourself the embodiment of dichotomy in terms of how your personal identity conflicts with and conforms to the inbuilt prejudices of this nation's power structure.

I cannot imagine a thinking woman being fooled into voting for McCain by the choice of Palin. I simply cannot imagine it.

Palin's greatest appeal, IMNVHO -- and no, I have no links to back this up -- won't be to women, and particularly won't be to progressive women. It will be to the men who want to control those women at one remove -- the men like James Dobson or Dr. Phil, mostly -- by ensuring that the women they do influence understand they're supposed to embrace Palin without considering her record or examining her ideas: they're supposed to embrace Palin's politics the same way they'd embrace a supermodel's figure or a rock singer's voice, as dramatic and special and societally-stamped with approval.

Artistry, individuality, and personal judgment all aside, just as the work of women is always less valuable than the approval of men.

I cannot imagine a thinking woman being fooled into voting for McCain by the choice of Palin. I simply cannot imagine it.

This sound like "Women who don't agree with me can't be thinking women".

Try this on for size --
No thinking woman could ever be fooled into voting for Obama with Hillary Clinton as a choice.

I cannot imagine a thinking woman being fooled into voting for McCain by the choice of Palin. I simply cannot imagine it.

This sound like “Women who don’t agree with me can’t be thinking women”.

Try this on for size —
No thinking woman could ever be fooled into voting for Obama with Hillary Clinton as a choice.

I simply don't see it. A thinking woman -- a woman who thinks, who doesn't just do as she's told by the men in authority -- isn't apt to find Palin appealing. She may still be very angry at the treatment Hillary received, or she may never have given a flip about Hillary's treatment at the hands of the media / OFB / Village.

Palin's politics themselves are what I find objectionable.
She is so anti-progressive she's borderline anti-woman. She is anti-choice.
She is pro-big oil.
She is anti-environment.
She is pro-more war.
These things are not rocket science.
How can a woman who is paying attention and thinking for herself and interested in a better future for her children be bamboozled by the chignon and the GOP spin/hype? Please tell me.

There are plenty of ways a woman could be convinced to vote for Obama even if Hillary remained a viable choice; else how did so many women make that choice, Paul?

But this isn't a choice between Hillary and Obama we're talking about. This is a choice between Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin.

Just as Biden and Obama are, philosophically, far more alike than they are different, Palin and Cheney / W/ McCain are far more alike than they are (physiologically, and therefore perhaps only first-glance apparently) different.

Or am I reading too much into "policy" and "record" and not enough into "image"?

restoring the process that we have traditionally used to elect candidates and a stand against the misogyny and hate that was employed to secure the nomination. That's a positive stance and one that is respectable. Obama is not a consensus candidate because of the way he went about securing the nomination - he's a thug. And thugs have never been known - as Obama is not known - for the exemplary action on behalf of women.

You can talk about how McCain is worse on this issue and that, but for the people who are looking at the grossly corrupted process that led to Obama having the nomination, it's hard to think of him as better on any issue. All I see when I look at Obama is the most corrupt Dem politician since Grant. That's it. Should he win, I expect him to be every bit as lame and destructive as Buchanan. Our very own George W. Bush.

As I said in another post, the sound of this campaign, for those not following the detaiis, is the sound of Democratic hate for women - all women. John Seigel, in The Audacity Of Democracy promo, says that the Obama campaign is a take over of the Democratic party by white males. If Obama wins, we're going to be saddled with the reputation as the party that beats up on women to win. The party that beats up on pregnant 17 year olds to win. The party that kicks their female candidates out on behalf of any guy that comes along - regardless of how corrupt, incompetent or inexperienced.

I'm writing the presidency as an asset off for the net four years. Both Obama and McCain will be equally destructive to women's rights - actually, I think McCain may be a shade better. He doesn't seem to possess that visceral loathing of all things female that Obama does. I believe Obama will gleefully appoint the judge that overturns Roe V Wade.

I'm skipping the election, but I will not stand silent while people who say they will vote for McCain rather than Obama are implied to be people who aren't thinking because I don't know how a thinking person votes for Obama. I just don't.

And I think that makes the blog too much like my job to go on with today.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

vigilance and be aware of all internet traditions.

-----------------------------

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

that loses Democrats the elections every 4 years, and this year is losing Democrats a big chunk of support from women:

I cannot imagine a thinking woman being fooled into voting for McCain by the choice of Palin. I simply cannot imagine it.

It's also the psuedo-feminist version of the various 'If you were a real Democrat/liberal/progressive/animal-lover'
loyalty fallacies that were thrown at Clinton supporters for months on end. How'd that work out for ya?

I've gone on ad nauseum at TL about how the passion to patronize dooms Democrats, so I won't repeat all that here.

But the obvious, almost juvenile, yet correct response to the 'thinking' women comment is: are you seriously arguing that no woman who disagrees with you is 'thinking'? There are no 'thinking' female Republicans? How about female Independents? Undecideds?

Ok, besides all that, this statement is just knocking down a straw(wo)man.

PUMAs and the like-minded are NOT voting for McCain-Palin because they're been fooled into thinking Palin is pro-choice, pro-environment, or pro-anything else.

It's a strategic choice. Voting against your interests in the short term to achieve a greater movement toward your goals in the long term. And that is a valid strategic choice, without bringing race into the discussion at all. Whether AAs are voting identity, Berry, fairytales in SC -- all this is irrelevant to the question. Politicians, activists, electorates of all stripes have been making strategic decisions for...well, all of voting history.

There's another reason why PUMAs et al might vote for Palin, I'll get there in a minute. But for a strategic choice, it can be validly criticized on two grounds: 1) the likelihood of success is being misestimated; and 2) the game's not worth the candle. Both of which can be discussed without insulting anyone's ability to 'think'.

The other reason PUMAs et al may choose to vote for Palin is because there is no other avenue available for them to express their anger at the sexism by their own party, or the other cheap fingers on the scale moves by the DNC. I've seen no constructive discussion anywhere of how to address this. Yes, folks throw out a few platitudes about 'holding their feet to the fire' after they're elected, or 'working to combat sexism in our own party', but nothing that would amount to a concrete or likely alternative to supporting the pathetic anti-progressive actions of this ticket or the bloggerkidz who 527 for them.

As a practical matter, the whole argument is irrelevant at this point, because, guess what: it's not all about you. McCain isn't aiming for PUMAs, or liberal women. If he snags some he'll be thrilled. However, he has laid yet another big trap which the fauxgressive blogs have already rushed into: he's laughing his ass off if the mainstay of discussion is a circular firing squad squabbling over what Clinton's liberal feminist supporters should do, must be compelled to do, whether they qualify as human, or whether we might allow that they can 'think'.

Brava.

Where did it go?

Where were all the DNC officials who participated in the anniversary of women's suffrage, this weekend?

Couldn't *they* exert any leadership throughout the party, saying you're ripping a scab off before it's even formed fully? Or did those delegates simply believe the hype that PUMAs were shills, inept terrorists or just foolish ladies too stupid to get a nice corporation to give them a neat party?

That *lack* of leadership during the Palin haka is the greatest sign that the DNC learned absolutely nothing from last week -- and they made Clinton's job harder, in preventing her entire voting bloc from not voting for Obama.