Nashville News Blog

Could McMillan manage to win a crowded primary race based on the votes of women alone?

If women voted en mass for McMillan? Yes, she'd win in a landslide.

She should also get labor and at least better than a fourth of African American voters. I fully expect to vote for her, though could change my mind.

To answer your question, many women aren't anal enough to start focusing on a primary over a year away; there just not as OC about it as most men and journalists.

"OMG...16 months before the primary and I haven't picked a candidate! All is lost for the woman candidate! Only the guy with his own fortune can possibly win at this point!

On the other hand, several politically involved women I know have already come out for McMillan. We'll see if younger women are as wowed by Cammack as goldni and a few other bloggers seem to be.

Missed this:

It's obviously her main selling point.

Uhm, she was majority leader of the state house but the main selling point is that she's a woman? How simple minded is that?

OK, Woodsie, I'll come out and support Kimmie Mac. Where's her website?

That block quote was printed on ink and paper for real? Yikes. It reads like a lazy 6th grader's attempt to reach a word count.

In other news, that lady looks like '80s sitcom sister, former anorexic, and sometimes drunk driver Tracey Gold.

Why haven't more women come out for McMillan, especially given the field of dull dweebs running in the Democratic primary? Because we don't make our decisions based solely on genitalia. We leave that to you guys.

Maybe that's why women don't win or even run statewide in Tennessee. You guys need to raise your damn consciousness.

To answer your question, many women aren't anal enough to start focusing on a primary over a year away; there just not as OC about it as most men and journalists.

First of all, that's a sexist comment and it's not true either. Secondly now's the time to get behind her if you're going to do it at all. She needs to raise money.

Could it be that female voters have also heard about her (non-lobbyist) revolving door appointment to Governor Bredesen's office?
That they resent her half-baked excuse that she was working (as a "citizen/legislator") for a law firm "firewalled" off from the Government Lobbying division?
That she sponsored and passed ethics law exempting lawyers (her profession), from client consultation and lobbying practices that other legislators and lobbyists must adhere too?
Or, is that too esoteric for women?
If so, there are plenty of positions she has taken that would keep men from rallying support for her too.

In my mind, it's a matter of issues, not of gender. The political junkies, who are the only people paying attention at this point, don't think McMillan is a serious contender because they don't think she can overcome her vote for a state income tax. No one will invest time or money in a candidate that they don't believe can win.

On other issues, JohnnyC, writes, "She should also get labor." Only if labor en masse forgets that McMillan sponsored the 2004 worker's compensation overhaul that screwed working people. I don't think that's going to happen.

Women are smart enough to realize that if we don't have a strong democratic candidate at the top of the ballot, Tony Gottlieb and his merry band of lunatics with their half-baked ideas are much more likely to successfully influence a republican controlled state house and senate. Women are much more likely to lose rights in proposed legislation that we have diligently fought for years from reproductive freedom to the right for a judge to determine custody of children based on the individual circumstances.

If that candidate is Kim McMillan, great. And if not, know that many "thinking women" will unite behind whomever the democratic cndidate is in an effort to regain a democratic majority in the state house and preserve our remaining rights.

And Tony, Kim got where she is by learning to play with the big boys and often beat them at their own game. That must be why you and your DADs seem so angry.

Pretty simple. It's because Kim doesn't make a very good candidate. Not a great record, not a strong speaker, not a lot of nifty new ideas, no base, no following, no angle or message of interest. She was a competent legislator of no great distinction. Would be a decent governor, I'm sure, and I'll voter for her over any Republican, but she's not going to inspire gender solidarity without more there there.

She's been on the hustings for a year with no traction. There's a reason for that. Have you ever actually seen her on the stump, Jeff? If so, you have your answer.

Maybe she needs more guns in her ads! Guns at her speeches! Guns in her car and in her home and at the restuarant and the playground.....maybe she's just not speaking to the "right" topics these days.

And then there's this: Many women don't run because they are afraid of the challenges they face. They're afraid to raise money, they are afraid of balancing family life. They don't think it's possible."

Oh bullshit. We do it every damn day - if this is the best she's got to offer then I say Aunt B for guv!

If I win the governorship, I promise to retire the term "cooter" and refer to my genitals and the genitals of other women as "vulvas," but until that day, when Woods is making reductive statements, I will be being reduced to my cooter.

Unless, of course, the turtle lobby is going to give me grief about it.

Women should work to elect politicians, regardless of the configuration of their genitals, who serve the best interests of the people of Tennessee.

Assuming that women should support women just because they're women is insulting. And, frankly, kind of weird.

If some guy named Jeff were running for governor, would you be pushing for him to win, regardless of his strength as a candidate?

Well, I guess that answers my question, Auntie. McMillan's not exciting women voters because women don't give a rat's ass whether women hold elected office in Tennessee.

But Woods, you forget--women do hold elected office in Tennessee. Do I feel like my interests are well represented as a woman by Ophelia Ford? Or Representative Lynn? Or Mae Beavers or Diane Black? No.

McMillan can have my vote if she turns out to be a good candidate. She doesn't get it automatically because we're women.

Do you vote for men just because they're men? I hope not.

I have been assuming you agree with the woman on the issues. If you did, then wouldn't you feel more inclined to help her campaign because she's a woman? Isn't it important for women to hold elected office, just as it is for blacks or Hispaniels or the yellow man?

I can't speak for all women (though dear God I'd love to), but I am not inclined to help anyone campaign because I am lazy.

Unless, of course, they advocate a day off the workweek for shoe shopping, amirite? LOL!

We're the same as the chicks of yesteryear, except we are terrified of yellow wallpaper.

I vote for more women bloggers on Pith - your contributors seem to be all male. What's up with that?

BTW - would you vote for Mae Beavers because her last name is Beavers? Just wondering....

But we do have Caleb Hannan, who wears pink shirts, and Brantley Hargrove, who uses hairspray. And I once took my grandpa golfing. Does that make us part girl?

No, but it explains a lot.

Ashley- How about "We're more likely to shoot creepy guys in parking lots" for a nice Thelma and Louise allusion?

I'm sure that whatever woman you'd ask to write for Pith would only make eminently reasonable requests which could so easily be answered that even a half-drunk staff writer could tackle them. And I bet she's unbelievably cute, too.

This discussion reminds me of how it was supposedly so pathetic that Al Gore lost his home state in 2000. This was/is a largely Republican state and I never understood why Republican Tennesseans were apparently expected to abandon their beliefs and vote for a guy simply because he was also a Tennessean.

If Fred Thompson had won the 2008 GOP nomination, would I have been expected to vote for him? Me vote for Fred? The thought is laughable.

And another thing: Aunt B, you're always complaining because men are making laws governing the behavior of women. So what are you doing about that?

Um, Woods, I'm a blogger. What I'm doing about it is sitting around and bitching. Isn't that self-evident? My god, man. When will you regular media guys ever get how this online stuff works?

Anyway, I think you misunderstand me. I'm complaining when stupid-ass men make laws governing the behavior of women. I don't believe that I'd automatically be better off with stupid-ass women making laws governing the behavior of of women. That wouldn't make the bitter pill of treating women like minor league citizens easier to stomach. I want legislators who are not stupid-asses, regardless of gender.

It could be that McMillan is not a stupid-ass, but I don't know. I just know that throwing my support behind a candidate I don't know anything about just because she's a woman does nothing to advance my goal of being a regular citizen. In fact, it seems to do the opposite.

JohnnyC, I'm not attacking McMillan and I'm not arguing about the income tax. I'm answering the question initially asked: why isn't McMillan gaining traction? Because no one thinks she can win. Why don't they think she can win? Because every conversation about her devolves into a conversation about the "woman candidate" or about "the candidate that voted for an income tax" or about "the woman candidate that voted for an income tax." You did it yourself.

I'll also correct two misstatements you made.

1. McMillan was not majority leader for the income tax vote in 2002. She did not "help bring the income tax to a vote." She voted for an income tax. Period. You and McMillan are trying to be too cute by half answering this question. Yet another aspect of the problem I initially highlighted. She might just be better off to say, "Yeah, I voted for an income tax. So what?"

2. You say labor will support McMillan. No, labor won't because she, as majority leader, sponsored the worker's comp overhaul in 2004.

BB, no a legitimate question would have been "Why hasn't McMillan excited more people?" Unless there's some ongoing series intended in which Woods asks why each candidate hasn't excited more women. Otherwise, there's this assumption that women should be excited about a woman running just because she's a woman and isn't it weird that they are not?

And that's going to be met with ridicule, because being a woman isn't a team sport, even as much as even I might like it to be at some points.

I am speaking for myself. You called ME out. If you didn't want to hear from me, maybe you shouldn't have named me by name.

And I never said I would or wouldn't support McMillan. I stated why I am not right now throwing my support behind her. And then it's some poor reflection on me that I've kept my mouth shut about a candidate I don't know anything about? Please.

Plus, I already stated my reasons for my discomfort with Emily's list, so I'm not going to get into them again.

This is ridiculous. You call me out for not supporting McMillan, as if I have some obligation to have an opinion about an election that is months away, then when I tell you why I don't have an opinion, BB jumps on it like it's some kind of proof that I'm not a serious political blogger who people should take very seriously. As if I'm running around demanding to be taken seriously as a serious political blogger.

Fuck it. Clearly Southern Beale is smarter than me because she knew enough to not rise to the bait.

Oh, yes, that must be it.

If this does become an ongoing series--"Woman does something. Why aren't other women rushing to aid her?"--please let me know when you get to the post that goes "Sources tell me that Aunt B. put five dollars in her purse this morning. Why aren't more women showing their support for Aunt B. by slipping five dollars into her purse as well?" so that I am not startled and misinterpret their intentions as trying to mug me once they have been transformed by the power of your overwhelming argument.