UPDATED: Did McCain Buy Obama Some "Electability Insurance"?

Maybe I'm reading too much into this.

But I'm old enough to remember when "Women's Lib" was considered radical fringe politics.  When "Ms." was the name of a magazine, not a form of address used in front of a person's name.  Well, unless that person was Gloria Steinem.  I remember that back in those days when I was advocating for passage of the ERA and eagerly scanning lists of possible female Presidential candidates within the next decade, Anita Bryant was widely admired for taking a stand against all those man-haters, and urging women to embrace their womanhood -- HER version of womanhood, which was stuck squarely in the 1950's, even though she was speaking in the late 70's.

But even at that time, when publicly questioned, many individuals who opposed "women's lib" would preface their opposition remarks with, "Of course, I think women should get equal pay for equal work, BUT . . . ."

Somehow, even though we are now well into the next millennium, Sen. John Bombiran McCain, the maverick moderate Republican Presidential nominee, doesn't seem to have wholeheartedly embraced even that miniscule shred of feminism espoused by opponents of women's rights.

Fact:  Yesterday the Senate voted on whether to consider a bill that would have removed a truly heinous limitation on a woman's right to sue an employer for gender-based discrimination in pay.

Fact:  The time for the vote was extended to allow the Presidential candidates to return to Washington to vote on the measure.

Fact: The vote was 56-42, four votes short of the 60-vote supermajority required for cloture.  That means 98 Senators voted, and two didn't.  Sens. Clinton and Obama, of course, hurried back to DC to participate in the vote.

Fact: John McCain was one of the two who didn't.

Fact: When asked about his views on the matter, McCain responded,

I am all in favor of pay equity for women, but this kind of legislation, as is typical of what's being proposed by my friends on the other side of the aisle, opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems. This is government playing a much, much greater role in the business of a private enterprise system.

Uh, John?  Newsflash: lawsuits are how we enforce rights in this country.  If I theorietically have a right, but I don't have access to the courts to enforce that right when someone denies it to me, then it is not really a right.

McCain instead argued for this more "moderate" solution for women who experience discrimination in the workforce:

They need the education and training, particularly since more and more women are heads of their households, as much or more than anybody else. And it's hard for them to leave their families when they don't have somebody to take care of them.

"As much [sic] or more than anybody else," Senator? You mean, as much as or more than men?

The essence of the bill was to reverse the effect of a Supreme Court decision that had itself reversed prior law.  Before the case of Lily Ledbetter vs. Goodyear made its way to the Supreme Court, existing law had held that each time a discriminatory paycheck is received, it re-starts the 180-day period within which a woman may sue for discrimination.  The Supreme Court, over the strenuous dissent of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, held that any lawsuit must be brought within 180 days of when the discrimination begins -- ignoring the fact that most new employees don't compare salaries with their co-workers at the water cooler during their first few months on the job, so by the time they discover the discrimination, they will likely already have been long barred from bringing suit.

So Sen. McCain is right; the proposed bill would in fact be likely to increase lawsuits.  Not because it would create a new cause of action upon which employees can sue, but because it would eliminate the current situation in which a right exists in name, but there is no realistic avenue for enforcing that right.

But my diary title is about Obama's electability, not about McCain's idiocy.  So let's move on to the implications of McCain's . . . gaffe? . . . on the general election.

We've all read the polls saying that something on the order of 25% of Clinton's supporters will not vote for Obama in the GE.  Higher in PA, lower in some other places, but overall it works out to something close to 25%.  Right now, Clinton has amassed about 15 million votes, if you  count FL and MI (which I don't for purposes of the nomination, but I do for purposes of estimating voters in the GE).  After the next few states, she will probably have, what, 3 million more?  For a total of maybe 18 million?  (If I'm way off base and someone has a better number, I will defer to your greater knowledge, because my quick research didn't yield any fruit on this question.)

So let's say 25% of 18 million, or 4.5 million, are currently telling pollsters they won't vote for Obama.  I'm sure the numerical match between voters and those who say in polls that they support her is inexact at best, but it gives at least a rough idea.  Also, we can leave aside whether they are being honest in saying they won't vote for Obama; for purposes of this question, that doesn't matter.  What matters is what they have been telling pollsters up until yesterday.

Of those 4.5 million, how many do you think are passionate feminists who won't vote for a man who can't even demonstrate conviction for the principle of equal pay for equal work?  Half a million?  A million?  Two million?  Most of them?  

In theory, the passionate feminsts already wouldn't vote for McCain because of what he will do to SCOTUS.  But until yesterday, it may have been possible for them to remain wilfully unsighted on this issue -- to believe, for instance, that McCain really IS moderate on abortion choice.  Not the wisest assessment, certainly, but plausible enough for someone who isn't immersed in the blogosphere 24/7 like we are and who is looking for reasons not to vote for Obama.

But even those willfully unsighted voters will have trouble spinning this one away.  I've gotta think that's worth a decent chunk of the 4.5 million votes, and it could provide a foothold for Barack in his efforts to bring hardcore Clinton supporters "into the fold."  

I'll end this by going back to my original statement, but this time as a question:  Am I making too much of this?  I think it could give Obama as much as maybe a million additional votes, and go a long way toward helping to unify the two camps against a common enemy.

UPDATE: Thanks to Sharon in MD for posting this e-mail received from NOW, which doesn't mention McCain's dropping the ball:

Dear Friends,

It's not good news.

Right now the Republicans are filibustering to prevent a vote on the Fair Pay Act that I've been writing to you about.

It's hard to believe, but today, in spite of tens of thousands of emails and phone calls sent by people like you, a minority of the U.S. Senate could block this bill restoring equal pay for women.

There's nothing new in this bill. The Fair Pay Act just gives women back the rights that the Supreme Court took away last May. Simple, right? Yet even as I am writing this, those who oppose women's rights are filibustering against the Fair Pay Act, bringing Senate action to a halt.

And it looks like supporters of the bill will not have the supermajority needed to end the debate. Good grief. We just lost by only 3 votes. But Sen. Harry Reid has signaled that he WILL bring this up again, as soon as we win 3 more votes. So I need your help.

It's been nearly a year since the House passed this bill, and we clearly have a long fight ahead.

Please consider a monthly gift to support NOW's work for equal pay. We are already organizing all over the country, registering and educating voters, in the hope of sending more women's rights supporters to Congress.

If you feel you can't commit to a monthly gift today please consider the most generous one-time gift you can afford. We'll put your contribution to work immediately. We fell only 3 votes short of the 60 votes needed to stop the Republican filibuster.

Please consider what you can do to help us launch an all-out campaign to win those last 3 votes. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

For equality,

Kim

P.S. Tomorrow I'll send you a message so you can see how your senators voted and send them an email -- thanking our friends and letting those who voted against fair pay know that you will remember in November.

NOTE: The reason the article says four votes and the e-mail says three is that Reid, as the senior Dem, voted against it for procedural reasons so that he can bring it back up for a vote if he can get the additional votes to be able to get the bill on the floor.  So technically his was a vote against, but not really.