Last Updated on February 12, 2022
Remember when Barack Obama referred to a female reporter with the nickname, “Sweetie”?  It was the “Sweetie” heard ’round the world, the definitive example of what the real Obama was all about, the disdain and contempt he feels for all people of the female persuasion.
Hillary Clinton’s staunchest supporters, the over-the-top feminists who were only interested in seeing a woman in the White House heard that word, they couldn’t make the “We’re not your ‘Sweetie'” t-shirts quickly enough.
And they declared that if their girl didn’t the nod, they’d vote for John McCain instead.
If we want to be fair, and I’m sure those people don’t, we ought to take a look at what “terms of endearment” the senator from Arizona might have used toward any member of the fairer sex.  After all, what’s good for the black gander is good for the white gander, right?  Especially if no goose is around.
My regular readers have heard me reference Linda Hansen before.  She’s a dear friend, my “second mom” and a terrific writer, and, despite being female, happens to support — gasp! — a male candidate: Obama.
Oh the horror!
Linda has written a wonderful piece on these Clinton supporters who are so willing to vote for the guy from the other side to “further” their own cause.  And I think when you read it, and judge these facts against McCain the same way the sudden McCain supporters have judged Hillary’s second-place showing and the “Sweetie” remark against Obama, you’ll be quite surprised at how shoddy the reasoning for throwing support towards McCain appears:
22% of women–“feminists” all–who supported Hillary Clinton swear they will not vote for Barack Obama. Why? They’re angry at sexist pundits and a sexist media, none of whom gave Hillary a fair shake. She lost the nomination, they insist, only because she is a woman. Barack Obama, they declare, is a sexist, too; part of a vast, left-wing conspiracy against a woman running for POTUS. If not for him…
John McCain is stepping into the Democratic feminist void, wooing these disaffected women like a randy suitor after an invite to the Sadie Hawkins’ Day Dance.
What’s scary is that some of these women are ready to do-si-do with him.
John McCain is a war hero. No doubt about it. But he is no great friend to women. In a 2000 interview with Tim Russert, McCain said he would support a constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. All abortions. That would mean no exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. Russert asked repeatedly if he understood the issue in question–that it meant all abortions, even therapeutic ones. McCain answered, “Yes, sir.”
The man means what he says.
In 2003, Senator McCain voted against legislation that would have required insurance companies to provide coverage for prescribed contraceptives. For birth control. This hit home with me. One of my daughters was paying a hefty full retail price for birth control pills because her husband’s health insurance provider would not cover contraceptives. They would, however, cover Viagra. Erectile dysfunction was clearly a priority.
Preventing an unplanned, unaffordable pregnancy? Not so much.
An argument, in that case, could be made for abstinence. If you don’t want to risk a pregnancy, be a good girl. Don’t have sex. That dog won’t hunt. When the provider is footing a chunk of the cost for Viagra so men can perform in bed, they’re sure not selling celibacy. They’re selling a good time for the good ole boy and expecting women to pay the piper.
McCain voted to terminate Title X family planning programs. Title X provides low income women with both birth control and cancer screenings. The old “ounce of prevention” theory for the have-nots.
On the issue of a woman’s reproductive rights, he’s got us coming and going. He’s not willing to keep us covered for contraceptives to prevent pregnancies and he’s not willing to consider any abortion as necessary.
He’s such a man. Does he have much respect for women? How does this man treat the woman who’s been his partner for decades, given birth to his children, kept the home fires burning?
In 1992 John McCain hit the campaign trail in Arizona, seeking re-election to his senate seat. On a campaign stop, in the presence of three Arizona reporters, his own aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullet, husband McCain surfaced publicly:
Cindy McCain playfully twirled John’s hair. “You’re getting a little thin up there,” she teased. Candidate John’s face went scarlet. “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you c@#t!” he snapped.
C@#t, for those of you who don’t get it, starts with “C” and rhymes with runt. It’s one of the most vulgar terms that can be used when speaking to or about a woman. A “trollop” is a disreputable woman, a promiscuous woman, a streetwalker.
McCain’s explanation for the obscene rant against his wife? He’d “had a long day.” That’s tough. Apparently he thought it was reason enough to humiliate his wife.
Whatever his virtues, this guy has little to offer American women. No understanding, no protective or preventive health care benefits and, by any measurable standard, no respect.
Incidentally, when Linda emailed me to let me know I had her permission to run the post, she asked me to add this:
“I have real trouble with that ‘C’ word–rather cut out my tongue than say it, cut off my fingers than write it. … I loathe that word–my generation of women (ask your mama) never heard that word or the ‘F’ word spoken aloud until we were exposed to R movies in our forties!”
One might wonder, after reading how far off the mark the Hillary supporters’ “second choice” seems to be, if it isn’t a good thing that Hillary didn’t get the nod; that is to say, if this is how women really think….
It’s a great relief, however, that the majority of women, a clear majority, took no time at all to realize that a male Democratic candidate who values women’s issues is better than a male Republican candidate who obviously doesn’t.
If that 22% who haven’t, as yet, taken time to think rationally ever do so, I suspect they’ll come to the same conclusion.
And to their senses.
Very interesting post.
I think, no I know, I’d rather be called ‘sweetie,’ than the C word. If 22% of women would vote for or against someone for the reasons cited, I swear 22% or more of men would take the same track under similar circumstances. On the subject of abortion, I don’t think it is right. But by the same token, it should be available to women who are raped, ill or whatever. Sometimes we have to chose the lesser of two evils. And sometimes what we think is evil is the only right choice. Life is tough and confusing. And it takes more than a little thought to make the right decision. Our problems in this country are deep and will not be solved with a simple fix.
I’m laughing, Patrick.
Your beginning this post with a reference to the “Sweetie Scandal” reminded me of a comment I read at Wonkette regarding Obama’s sugary slip of the tongue:
“I’d rather have a president who calls a reporter ‘sweetie’ than a president who calls his wife a ‘c@#t’.”
Sweet.
Amen to that.