"The whole experience question just feels like a stand-in for race, or maybe something else I'm missing."

Melinda,

Take a look at your comment. It doesn't matter if its a female business executive of South Asian extraction in Alexandria or a white male coal miner in West Virginia, the only explanation you can come up with for supporting Hillary Clinton is race or racism. It can't be experience. It can't be issues. If Hillary's a racist, what does that make the 18 million voters who chose her over Obama? Obviously, we must have been complicit. It was always so obvious.

I've been astounded at the absence of celebration on the part of Obama supporters and the obvious desire to continue the war against Hillary through to November. I must say the invitation to join your club isn't really that appealing.

If Obama doesn't know what he needs to say to bring Clinton supporters back, if he doesn't know how to spin a populist message to bring back those Americans that his own supporters despise, he doesn't stand a chance in November.

Your comment suggests to me that you don't know what to say either.

She's talking about progressive women choosing Obama over McCain. I honestly don't see how (if you are a feminist) you justify this. There may be something other than racism, but aside from wanting to see your opponent vanquished in whatever way possible, I don't see how you go from Clinton to McCain rather than Clinton to Obama.

It can't be experience. It can't be issues.

I think the reason that "experience" and "issues" seem like pretextual reasons ( <link> ) for Democrats defecting to McCain is that, as the blog post points out, Obama and Clinton's experience are not drastically different and their stances on the issues are almost identical.

Clinton has two more years of experience in the U.S. Senate, but she lacks Obama's State level experience.

And it's difficult for me to come up with major policy differences between the two. Clinton supported mandatory healthcare coverage for children and adults. Obama did not require that such coverage be mandatory for adults. Other than the gas tax holiday, I can't think of any other major (if you call that major) policy differences between the two.

So it seems to many Obama supporters that since it's probabaly not experience and issues that are making Clinton supporters defect, then it must be some other significant reason that is being unstated.

Maybe some women feel scorned by the Obama camp. Maybe some people just don't like Obama. Maybe his personality rubs them the wrong way.

Or maybe the reason that people are defecting is because they feel uncomfortable with the idea of a Black president. This reason seems likely to many of us, because it would explain why defectors' reasoning seems so flimsy.

I agree with you, but the more likely explanation is that there are still a lot of hard feelings from the campaign. I don't see the value in ascribing it to racism.

supports explained the experience issue and then re-explained it and re-explained it and re-explained it and . . . still Obamacrats rejected it as nonsensical.

What's nonsensical is Obamacrats demanding to know why Hillary supporters might prefer McCain over Obama, being told precisely why, and then rejecting those reasons as nonsensical. It does not matter if they are nonsensical to Obamacrats. They are the stated reasons.

You can continue to reject those reasons and claim that it's racism instead, but you cannot win over those people with your choice of 'arguments', all you can do is convince them that Obamacrats are idiots and clowns.

You might pause to consider that and then remove your glowing nose and big-floppy shoes.

eofiss,

I agree hard feelings is probably the explanation for what I hesitate to call the better educated voter. What I find troubling with Obama is his inability, and seeming lack of interest, in speaking to the populist base of the Democratic party. He barely contested certain states that we could very well have picked up this year. These are the voters who will be attracted to McCain, and they could have been ours.

I think we were especially well-placed this political season to recoup voters who are attracted by the sort of message Edwards was pretty effective in delivering. I thought it was interesting that Clinton was the one that picked up that mantle after Edwards exited. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't appear to have a populist bone in his body.

I can think of a lot of reasons to vote for McCain, I just don't see how he is a "feminist" choice. Yes, some who consider themselves feminists can and may vote for him, but I would really like to see specific policy examples of how he supports feminist principles over Obama. Being told that someone prefers McCain on tax, economic, and foreign policy issues, I would really like to know what those issues are, and how McCain better supports their position. Obviously, anyone can vote as they choose, and I can't stop someone from voting McCain because they woke up on election day and that was what just "felt right" to them, but I think to hide disappointment, or whatever other reason, behind the excuse that they are basically the same, policy-wise, is dishonest.

Gatewood:

You would rather have someone with "more experience" who has promised to nominate judges counter to your judicial philosophy, is cavalier about staying in Iraq another hundred years, will do nothing about universal healthcare and cares precious little about the rights of women, if his dissing of the Fair Pay act is to be believed.

In other words, his experience in Washington could make him more effective in working against everything Hillary Clinton stands for.

No matter how little you value Obama's experience, voting for McCain if you were a HRC supporter doesn't make sense.

Tubbs,

Some won't vote for Obama because of racism, and some won't vote for him because they don't like his supporters (check out Jeff Greenfield on Orwell and his critique of British socialists) but many will not vote for him because he doesn't know how to speak the language of populism, and what is sad is that he didn't even take the opportunity to address these people at the end of the campaign.

The people Obama isn't reaching have been, historically speaking, the people who make victory possible.

Hi pfire,

I didn't get a strong sense when I read the letter that the woman was speaking from a specifically feminist perspective. She was definitely speaking as a woman who supported Hillary, and who knew others in her position who were not inclined to vote for Obama. She seemed to have found McCain more attractive, again due to experience. You may be right. I just didn't pick that up.

Hmm. I don't know if Obama "knows how to speak the language of populism," in fact, I bet he doesn't because, as a Hawaiian kid who grew up in an apartment, I don't think that resonates with him. But what he does know is how to work with poor people and he spent his early career doing just that. Now, granted, they were poor black, brown and Native American people on the South Side of Chicago (and we all know that's the baddest part of town ;) and not poor Appalachian whites but, if you read his first book, his mother's father had to deal with just the sorts of prejudice and struggles those folks face. He was reared by a grandpa who was just like them. And the fact that he didn't choose to fight Hillary in those states, when he (obviously) could have spent his time more productively elsewhere doesn't mean he isn't going to fight John McCain for every vote. Notice how he's started with Jim Webb out in Bristol, VA, this past weekend? That's coal country and those are the kind of Democrats that will possibly switch this state from red to blue this fall.

eric--

Open to interpretation, I guess. The woman who supported NARAL meetings, feminist. the 6-7 others, I assumed a feminist basis (or support of feminist causes) because they were lifelong democrats and some worked for democrats. I still don't see how you can go from working for the Democratic party to supporting McCain. How attractive is experience when it goes against everything you've worked for?

As for the populism, Obama has reached out, except for those few places where it seemed (at least to me) that he didn't have a chance to reach those people. how much money should he have spent in WV and Kentucky to change the minds of people who clearly weren't that into him? Better to spend it in an area where they would be more receptive.

Well, he had plenty of money (it would appear). Perhaps, he can make up some of the difference with the right veep. I'm kind of doubtful.

As a life long Democrat I do not see a win for Obama if he cannot carry Ohio (southwestern Ohio - big problem), Pennsylvania (western Pennsylvania - big problem), and even Michigan. These states are populated by millions of voters who are attracted to a standard populist message about jobs, etc. I am afraid that Obama supporters believe that Obama will win all those Republican states he won during the primaries. It ain't happening, and outside of Virginia, I don't think he'll carry any of the states in the South.

He needs to get some pointers from Webb, but I don't think Webb is the right veep. Although it might insure Virginia.