Democratic Iowa Isn't Progressive about Women?

[benny05]

Today, I was reading Taylor Marsh's blog. The post was about Clinton getting boo'd at the Heartland Forum in Des Moines yesterday. Taylor believes Clinton can take the boos and was right to stand her ground in not committing immigration reform in the first 100 days of her presidency, if Clinton is in the WH. I don't have a huge problem with her answer either as the Rethugs won't do anything about the path to citizenship for undocumented workers either.

As this was Taylor's main post of the day (hey it's Sunday, so not unusual on a smaller blog to leave the threads open longer for comments), there were many comments about it. Most of the readers tend to pull for Clinton over there, and Taylor has been pretty harsh about Obama and his candidacy in general. But she surprised me in posting this comment amongst the others:

Everyone needs to get off of Iowa. It's one flippin' state. It's who has longevity. Clinton was *never* supposed to be this strong in that state. It's a very conservative place. She's got strong Democratic ideology, unlike Obama. They're also not progressive where women are concerned. Don't forget that point, which is important.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26637

I don't know about you, but to me, Iowa does matter, considering that the majority win translates into more funds, endorsements, and other votes for the candidate in NH, NV, and SC. That certainly happened in 2004 for Kerry in which his support surged in NH after winning IA. But another point: many of the Iowan women I know are pretty progressive. They have a Lt Governor, Patty Judge, who is progressive. Many more Iowan women are getting involved with politics, and they are progressive as well.

Clinton was ahead in the polls until recently. And it seems to me that some of her supporters, including Taylor Marsh (who hasn't officially endorsed Clinton, but posts more positive spin on Clinton's actions, and wants a "viable" woman candidate in the WH) are trying to downplay Clinton's chances in Iowa by saying IA isn't as progressive "where women are concerned."

Iowans: I'd like your take as you know, I'm from Illinois. I think Taylor's comment is a bit over the top.



:shrug:

[Debi]

1. I'm pretty new to Iowa politics (really only involved for the last decade)

but I think it's more that it's either been the wrong race or the wrong candidate - not because the candidate is a woman.

Either running against an incumbent or running in a conservative district I don't think the Democratic candidate being a man would have changed the outcome.

There are many women in Board of Supervisors seats and in the Iowa Legislature right now that I think we'll see running for higher office.

[benny05]

2. I agree Debi

When I've visited, I've seen quite a few women who are very active in the Dem party in Iowa. To say that Iowa isn't progressive when it comes to women is not true.

[Pirate Smile]

3. I knew this was coming if Hillary had any problems. They are going to call Iowans sexist which

I just love since I am a woman - like that is the only reason anyone could have to not support Clinton.

[benny05]

4. Whom do you support, Pirate Smile?

Dodd? Richardson?

[Pirate Smile]

5. Obama. I've seen some comments floating around about how Iowa

hasn't had a female Governor or Senator so ...

I have been expecting this this to pop up from the Clinton campaign. I thought they might wait to use it as a way to discount a loss instead of using it ahead of time because it may alienate Iowans.

I know Obama said that if he lost, it wouldn't be because he was African-American. It would be because he hadn't convinced the voters of Iowa that he was the best person for the job (or something like that). I wish Clinton would say the same thing re gender.

Her gender is, frankly, a positive for me.

edit to add - I generally view Marsh as a Clinton partisan. She is a supporter and she generally acts like one. That is perfectly fine but I view all of her comments through that prism.