Now that Sarah Palin has been on the ticket with John McCain for over a week, is there any evidence that her presence is winning over Hillary Clinton supporters? Nothing concrete yet. But self-described progressive feminist Tammy Bruce has written an editorial trying to make the case that Palin as vice president would be better for women than Barack Obama as president.
While Tammy Bruce was once the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women, sheâ€™s an odd figure, generally supporting Republicans over Democrats during her tenure as a pundit. I donâ€™t think her opinion is representative of any group larger than herself, but I do expect to see this kind of argument used repeatedly in the attempt to woo Clinton supporters to McCain/Palin.
Here is a snip of Bruceâ€™s argument:
[W]omen share a different life experience from men, and we bring that difference to the choices we make and the decisions we come to. Having a woman in the White House, and not as The Spouse, is a change whose time has come, despite the fact that some Democratic Party leaders have decided otherwise
The [Democratic] party has moved from taking the female vote for granted to outright contempt for women. That’s why Palin represents the most serious conservative threat ever to the modern liberal claim on issues of cultural and social superiority. Why? Because men and women who never before would have considered voting for a Republican have either decided, or are seriously considering, doing so.
They are deciding women’s rights must be more than a slogan and actually belong to every woman, not just the sort approved of by left-wing special interest groups.
Bruce sees the Obama campaign as misogynistic and, if some of the interviews I heard from DNC delegates are to be believed, Bruce is not alone in that perception.
But, is a distrust of Obamaâ€™s commitment to womenâ€™s issue really enough to sway Clinton supporters to McCain/Palin? I donâ€™t know. But I donâ€™t think weâ€™ve seen the last of this argument.