Women got out the vote for Obama's second term, on the basis that he was more likely than Romney to appoint Supreme Court justices who might protect women's rights.

Apparently feminists had forgotten the Clarence Thomas hearings. Supreme Court appointees have to be adults with enough credentials to appear suitable for the job, like a district judge, a successful attorney, or a professor. But if they have ever openly supported women's rights, even so much as making a public statement in support of women's reproductive rights, the Republican Senators will not allow them to be confirmed. So the only people who can be confirmed are those who oppose women's rights, or who will swear under oath that they have never thought about women's rights or formed an opinion on the subject. How many adults can say that truthfully?

It is therefore very likely that Obama will appoint the Supreme Court justices who overturn Roe v. Wade, and women will be furious. Having exhausted the race card, the Democrats will probably run a woman for President in 2016. It might be Hillary Clinton or any other female Democrat, but it won't matter if she is pro-war, anti-environment, pro-Wall Street, pro-Monsanto, or anything else. If she is demonstrably female and has ever said anything (not necessarily done or accomplished anything) in support of women's rights, since the Republicans will run a woman-hater, women will vote for her.

Imagine the enthusiasm of women Democrats if they get an opportunity to vote for the nation's very first female Drone-Bomber-in-Chief! It won't matter what else she does, just as was the case with Obama, who did nothing for Blacks in the US, as long as she is clearly female.

Progress, to progressives, was getting the first Black President in US history, even if his greatest accomplishment was revoking the Magna Carta and asserting the right to imprison and kill US citizens without due process. That took us back to the Dark Ages of the 12th Century, but as far as progressives are concerned, it is progress because it was done by a Black man.

And just as it proved impossible to get Occupiers to refuse to vote for the government they're protesting, it may prove impossible to get Occupiers to refuse to vote for a government that will inevitably remain the same or change only for the worse, if the Democratic candidate in 2016 has a vagina. Forgetting Margaret Thatcher, Phyllis Schafly, and other right-wing women, and forgetting that it was Democrat Nancy Pelosi who took the impeachment of Bush and Cheney off the table, they will accept any woman nominated by the Democrats so as to be able to point to the "progress" of electing a female.

2016 is going to be a historic election. But unless the Election Boycott Movement succeeds, and Occupy Wall Street decides to stop voting for a government that is wholly owned by Wall Street, which isn't very likely, 2016 is going to be a b*tch.

If anyone here is interested in the Election Boycott Movement, they can find more information here:

http://fubarandgrill.org

We succeeded in getting the Election Boycott into the general discussion and making some people aware that there is an alternative to voting for the government that is oppressing you, and we succeeded in lowering voter turnout in all fifty states in 2012, but Occupy turned into a national voter registration campaign and was one of the biggest enemies of democracy. I hope that won't be the case in 2016.