Those are words I see on DU all the time. The idea is that republicans are so bad on women's rights issues that a woman would have to be crazy or something to be a republican, regardless of her other beliefs and values.
Rhee is a democrat. She may be a democrat because she's in favor of a progressive tax system, environmental laws, abortion rights, or any number of other issues that democrats substantially differ from republicans. Maybe she's against unions or public sector unions or just teacher's unions. Perhaps it's none of that and she has a more nuanced position on unions. These (alleged) democratic principles have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Speaking generally, considering how many reasons there are to vote D and not vote R regardless of your position on eduction policy, why is it hard to believe that she's a democrat?
There's an interesting consequence to the rhetorical question in my subject line. If women are democrats simply for the women's rights issues then otherwise conservative women will be democrats and that will move the party to the right. So we shouldn't be surprised when we see democratic women proposing ideas that seem more at home in the republican party. I think the relevant data would be the economic opinions of democratic women that earn more than, say, the median wage compared to the opinions of the same democratic men.
Back to Rhee. As the article points out, it seems like she's winning the ideological war. Eventually her positions may become the principles future democrats adhere to. I really don't know where that will leave her democratic opponents. Presumably the women will still vote for democrats, barring a complete reversal of republican positions on women's rights issues.
= new reply since forum marked as read