In 2004, George Bush beat out John Kerry for the White House by just over three million votes.
The 2008 race is bound to be a close one, as well. I know the candidates have been a little preoccupied with Iowa and New Hampshire, but with a margin of victory so slim, wouldn’t you think that the candidates would be interested in over seven and a half million women who will probably be voting?
Catherine Morgan at Informed Voters can’t believe that those of us who write and read blogs are being ignored by the candidates.
And Erin at Queen of Spain is banging her head against the internet firewall.
Why?
Because it seems that invitation after invitation to answer questions or interact with BlogHer, an organization made up of thousands of women bloggers, is being ignored. Blown off.
With one notable exception, even the candidates’ spouses aren’t listening to us.
I’m getting just a teensy bit annoyed that those who want to be president don’t want to engage us on any significant level. Would it be any different if the majority of women bloggers lived in, say, Iowa? New Hampshire? No need to answer that one.
But I keep coming back to the question of ‘why?’ Is it that most of the candidates just are so behind the technological times that they have no clue that this community exists? Or are they unaware that we’re out here talking about issues and wondering who is the best person to put our country back together?
If I was Republican homeschooler backing Mike Huckabee, I’d be getting lots of press, and candidate, attention.
So what’s the solution? Perhaps if we rely on the old ‘don’t get angry, get even’ adage, they’ll sit up and take notice. And by that I mean voting is the best revenge.
If a candidate is taking me for granted as a voter and as a political voice, then I want to make sure that candidate isn’t even getting my consideration. Lots of us stay at home and don’t vote. But what if we all voted this year? What if we exercised that right and really made our voices heard, be they blue, red or purple? You can bet that we would never be taken for granted again.
Just as our husband’s need a little reminder from time to time that we don’t like it when they forget we’re the ones who keep our family lives running, it’s time for the candidates to get a reminder that we’re here and we’re paying attention and, contrary to what some think, we don’t just follow our spouses’ leads at voting time.
If they don’t want to hear it now, they can hear it when we speak through the ballot box.
What do you think? Does it matter to you that the candidates don’t want to take the time to address the questions of the vast range of women out here in the blogosphere? Or are you just as happy to be left alone during the campaign?
Cross-posted from PunditMom’s Spin Cycle.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
It does matter and I am troubled.
I have emailed the campaigns with questions and comments, and while I don’t exactly expect to hear back from the candidate, just hearing back from *anyone* would be nice.
That would indicate a commitment to The Man (or The Woman as it were).
KWIM?
All the candidates are happy to trouble me for money and time, but none are willing to trouble themselves for me.
And people wonder how and why anyone can still be undecided.
It’s because “talk much now, act how later” is stuck in my head.
The ONLY candidate whose campaign bothered to reply to a question I had was Edwards, who, not ironically, is the candidate pressing hardest for The People.
The People, who it appears, can’t manage to vote for him.
Sigh. I don’t know.
Yes, by golly, I wish they’d talk to me through my channels (e.g., BlogHer). Maybe I’d get a clearer picture.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
I would be willing to put my name and blog address on a BlogHer petition to the candidates. If there is already a petition, would you mind pointing me towards it? If there is not a petition, it might be an ideal time to create one.
I imagine a candidate’s campaign advisors use a complicated and strategic process to decide to whom they will publicly address. I guess my big question to the individual candidates (and their campaign personnel) would be, what is the potential downside that carries enough concern to decline or ignore a BlogHer interview?
January 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
It seems clear that women are going to play an important role in the election…ignore them at the risk of losing the election.
Thanks for linking to me.
January 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I think New Hampshire proved that women voters are important. And you know as well as I that some of the candidates are using social media sites like Twitter. There is no excuse that they’re ignoring the women bloggers. No excuse at all.
January 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Well, I think you know what I think. I believe I’ve also described it as banging my head against a wall.
After all our open letters and political posts on DC Metro Moms, all we got was an inquiry from Senator Biden & that’s just because I erroneously criticized him. Maybe if we starting attacking candidates instead of questioning them. But that’s not really my style….
They’re making a huge mistake though.
It’ll be interesting to see if the tune changes as we get past the primaries and to the actual election.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:38 pm
It surprises me that none of them are willing to interact with the women of BlogHer. It is very shortsighted. I think it may be ignorance as you asked…maybe they just don’t understand what’s happening in the blog world. I would have expected Obama to at least be more aware of this phenomenon than the others but apparently Elizabeth Edwards is the only one who gets it!