Barack Obama and the Female Vote

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

I could not agree more with Charlotte Allen ["Women vs. Women; We Scream, We Swoon. How Dumb Can We Get?" Outlook, March 2]. Swooning fans of Sen. Barack Obama who have no basis for their supporting their candidate are annoying.

But we all know that such flaws are not limited to the fair sex. Instead of analyzing why this nation's first major female contender for president is losing votes among women, Ms. Allen chose to hyper-stereotype women. I hope she realizes that in doing so, she put herself in the same category as the women she seems to detest so much.


New York

Linda Hirshman ["For Hillary's Campaign, It's Been a Class Struggle," Outlook, March 2] explains that women, including me, who support Sen. Barack Obama are "fickle," "elites" who don't care about low-income women, have possibly been seduced by the wealthy and attractive Barack and Michelle, know (like all women) less about politics than the men of our social class, and being, like all women, more averse to political conflict than men, may just have been browbeaten by those mean, mean "Obamabots." It couldn't possibly be that we have read up on the issues, watched the debates, evaluated the campaigns and made complicated judgments that happen to come out differently from Ms. Hirschman's.

Fortunately, Charlotte Allen boils it all down for the fickle, Obama-crushing, Manolo-coveting, ignorant, conflict-averse, push-aroundable female voter: "Women Aren't Very Bright." Thanks for clearing that up!

I'm looking forward to further installments, like "Female Suffrage: A Big Mistake" and "Why Education is Wasted on Women." Followed by yet another round of, "Why Don't Women Read The Washington Post?"


New York

Linda Hirshman and Charlotte Allen both conclude, through different arguments, that if you are a Democratic woman who is not voting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the presidential primary, you are either elitist or dumb.

CONTINUED     1        >

© 2008 The Washington Post Company