but there's something about this whole women in blogs thing that confuses me a bit.
Bush got the security moms (more to the point, we lost them) after an election run on the Drum model, where the party ran away like frightened bunnies from any constituency the right (and of course the "center") might consider to be fringe.
Oddly enough, one of the fringe minorities we ran away from hardest was, um, women. Can't be seen to be marketing to them, a'cause they might be feminists or not good christians or something.
There are a lot more women than there are "values voters," kids - some of them *are* values voters - and those women have a lot of stuff in common. One of the things they have in common is that there are a lot of problems they have to deal with - like lower pay, bad schools for their kids, less of a shot at good jobs, taking care of family members who fall between the cracks, doing the more than 50% of the household work that surveys tell us are their lot even when they're working multiple jobs and are the sole or majority wage earners in their families or raising children in poverty as a single parent in grossly disproportionate numbers- which government has a big impact on.
One of the givens in this conversation is that the right is better at parlaying not-too-many women (who are basically repeating the same crap as the men, but now with added X chromosome *and* a shopping mall glamor shot) into a perception that they listen to women.
So they've got a very few tokens who they portray as their act of gender inclusion and they get to portray themselves as female friendly while they add to the problems women have to deal with while "we" marginalize women because they don't talk like "we" do?
Not for nothing, gentlemen and Mr. Drum, but you are are not "we"
We are "we"
"We" were fifty-four percent of the voters in the last presidential election, and even while the only voices most voters hear were dismissing us, "we" voted for Kerry 51-49 because what George Bush and his party stand for hurts "us".
The problem with the discussion is not that women are irrelevant. The problem with the discussion is that a very small demographic minority of "centrist" policy hobbyists with no constituency to speak of (yeah, I totally see white Rockefeller Republican men in "liberal' drag as the growth opportunity for the Democrats, 'cause they've been there for us so often in the past) have seized the microphone (well, hell, they paid for it, right?) and announce with deadening frequency that voices they aren't interested in just aren't speaking the right language.
We're speaking the language of the voters, assholes. What the fuck do you speak?
Whatever it is, it gets louder every time the right calls you girly-men, and the strategic show of disconnect from icky girl cooties is driving women into the arms of the right, or at least out of our arms.
The rest of the world has figured that out. Grasp your manhood firmly and give it some thought, OK?
Bigness, although I was amused to see it framed in those terms, has jack-shit to do with it. Somehow Markos and Atrios and Jesse have managed to get Big without tossing women over the side. It's about wanting more to be king of a small but exclusive hill than to be part of the collective voice of a group holding a really big hill.
I'm not in the business of tossing people over the side for electoral advantage. Were I, I would firmly believe that the DLC faction would, in good conscience, conclude that they have to jump.
Just on principle. I hear we care about that.