Monday, February 11, 2008

Stomping on Their Children's Dreams

By Robert Parry
February 11, 2008

One painful irony of the Obama-Clinton showdown is that it could end up with middle-aged women – who are determined to elect the first female president – stomping on the dreams of their own children, who have shaken off years of political apathy to rally behind Barack Obama.

What makes this dilemma particularly poignant is that many of these Hillary Clinton supporters themselves experienced the stomping on their dreams four decades ago in the pivotal election of 1968.

Read on.


Arkinsaw said...

"Not surprisingly, the youthful idealism of the 1960s devolved into world-weary cynicism that would be passed down like some bitter legacy from the Baby Boomers to their children: You can’t really expect to beat the Man. You need to just look out for No. 1."

Not all of us Baby Boomers devolved into cynicism. Many of us continued the struggles, working through the Peace Corps, the environmental movement, teaching, community organizing, etc., and looking out for each other.

I get very frustrated listening to all the young Obama supporters claiming the Baby Boomers failed. Many baby boomers were not part of the struggles of the 60s and 70s (i.e. George Bush and his cornies). And many that were have lived lives of service to their families, communities and country.

Zee said...

Well put, arkinsaw. I get frustrated, too, watching the boomer women fight for the rights of the young bridezilla types to have control over their own bodies. I say, why wait to disabuse the young brats? If they want to fall for the same old MSM narrative of anointing a "likable uniter" and would be "crushed" by the nomination of a woman leader, let them suffer under McCain a few more years. Look where the youth cult of Nader got us. If they never learn, it's their hides, and women like Caroline Kennedy ought to be teaching her kids something instead of joining up with their personality cult of Preacher Obama.

sk said...

I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton. In 1968 and 1972 I supported Hubert Humphrey Why, because I am from the working blue collar class. I was not given my college education. I earned it, every grade and every dollar. I am a realist and a pragmatist. I have been a Democrat my entire voting life. I have worked my entire married life, and in essence my husband never supported me, we each contributed equally income wise. I have three grown children: one is a stay at home mom, one is a computer program tester, and one is an electrical nano research engineer. They are all Hillary supporters,realists and pragmatists,and earned their own money for college. You figure it out.

Uncle Ernie said...

Obama ain't no John Kennedy, I knew John Kennedy and neither is Teddy, you see what 40 years of pickling your brain in alcohol does! Yes let's all goose step off behind "The Cult of Personality." Besides a women's place is in the kitchen, eh Robert? Yes by all means let our brain dead children pick the next dictator, it will serve them right. I bet old Johnny McCain and the far right are laughing their asses off!
Bob you got to put that crack pipe down it's making you null and void!

Anonymous said...

This is an incredibly sexist remark:
"One painful irony of the Obama-Clinton showdown is that it could end up with middle-aged women – who are determined to elect the first female president – stomping on the dreams of their own children, who have shaken off years of political apathy to rally behind Barack Obama."

I'm a middle-aged white women who does not want Clinton as the president. I'm going with Obabma because I'm convinced he'll make the better president.
And what about women of color? You're making a generalization about white women only; many women of color back Obama and many back Clinton. I think you should publish an apology or rewrite your lead to be inclusive -- and factual. Shame on you!

Piezo said...

Parry you've gone Hillary-hating berserk. Your recent articles have been one long anti-Hillary diatribe ala Frank "the butcher" Rich and The Dragon Lady herself. Let's get a Democrat elected this time mmm-K? Or do you hate her so much that you would have to vote for McCain instead?

tina said...

I am black and female and at 54 I am not going to let "kids" who have no life experiences at all pick a president that is going to lead the nation. The "me" generation. What did we call them generation x, has everyone forgotten this?

Dakota said...

Has the Obama campaign been piping marijuana into their rallies through the air vents? Good grief, Robert. I've always respected your knowledge and writing, but you're not making sense here. Comparing a legitimate Obama loss to the murders of the Kennedys and King??? Telling us "white middle-aged women" that we should protect our children from the harsh fact of life that getting excited about a candidate doesn't always mean he/she will win -- protect them by just handing the country over to a candidate who can't bring himself to tell us what he would do in office? It's our job as parents to tell our children to keep their eyes and ears open and always demand proof, especially from the charismatic and the powerful. An Obama loss might not be the most disillusioning thing for them, after all. It might be getting him into office and then watching him sell out their hopes and dreams. And until Obama starts publicly putting himself on the line regarding his plans, there is absolutely no reason to believe he wouldn't.

micki said...

Robert Parry, I would respectfully suggest you get out a little more and talk to some pontificate:

But other mothers – especially white women over 50 who have been targeted as a core constituency by Hillary Clinton’s campaign – are making another judgment. They believe it is time for a woman to be president and they don’t see another likely female contender on the horizon. So Sen. Clinton it is.

Sorry, we white middle-aged women (I came of age to vote in the 1968 election), have not settled on Senator Clinton because "it's time for a woman to be president" -- we fully support Hillary Clinton because she's the most qualified and the most inspirational on merit and leadership (not feel-good kumbaya).

I'm not for Senator Clinton because she's a woman, I'm for her because I'm a woman.

Many of us never gave up the good fight -- from 1968 forward. My daughters can pick anyone they want as their presidential choice, if they are disappointed, I'll tell them to "snap out of it" and get moving for the next time.

Parry, you're insulting.

Ann C. Davidson said...

Mr. Parry, it seems you and neocon Bill Kristol are on the same page. (We all know it's those older white women who are the problem.)

Oh my. Well, as an older white woman who struggled for a long time before deciding to vote for Senator Clinton, let me just say, as the kids would, Get a clue! Most of us older women have had to struggle all our lives just to keep our heads above water. Don't you find it at all significant that Senator Clinton's support comes from those making less than $50,000 a year, while Senator Obama's comes from the over-privileged, pampered children of the economic elite of this country? As someone who grew up in a union household (and there seem to be fewer and fewer of us these days) that certainly tells me something.

I found it risible that your essay about us evil older women was followed by a piece of drivel like "An Odyssey to See Barack Obama." This isn't political commentary, this is cultism. That's what you offer in place of Senator Clinton's lifetime of working for women and children, and the poor? Sorry, Mr. Parry, I'm not buying (and you can keep your Kool-Aid; I never liked that stuff anyway).