In the beginning....I didn't think the fact that a candidate was female would make much difference here at kos. But multiple, daily anti-Clinton diaries and comments have convinced me otherwise. Hillary Clinton is the sole recipient of repetitive comments like: "I hate Hillary Clinton." "I will never vote for Clinton no matter what." How many comments have you seen that read: I will never vote for Barak Obama? I hate Chris Dodd? Bill Richardson is a bitch.
Why such venom is directed only at Senator Clinton is a phenomenon it's time to discuss. But first, take a jump back in time with me.
Women do not have legal custody of their own children. Fathers can, and do, sell their children into servitude and mothers have no recourse. In the rare case of divorce, fathers are always awarded custody, even if they're vagrant, falling-down drunks. Women are not allowed to serve on juries, so if charges are lodged against them, they are never judged by their own peers. Women who work in mills and factories, or who do piece work at home, or sell their quilts and preserves at county fairs, have no legal right to keep the wages earned. Their wages belong to their Husbands, fathers, or older brothers. Women who inherit money upon their fathers' death can do nothing with it, because it legally belongs to their husbands; a husband can throw his wife out of the house that her father willed her and she has no remedy. A man can be hanged for stealing another man's horse, but he can rape and beat his wife with impunity.
Is this the Middle Ages? No, it's mid-19th century America. And that was not so long ago--these women could have been the great-grandmothers of some of us.
The 1850s suffrage regulations in New York State, like those of other states, limited voting priviledges to those classes deemed capable of sound judgment and reason. To this end, the state excluded children, idiots, lunatics...and women. (of course it also excluded criminals, aliens, indigents, and Negroes on the grounds they weren't citizens.) Following the Civil War, black men were granted voting rights with the 14th amendment, but black and white women were not. It would be more than another half century before my grandmother Grace could cast her first vote. She and five women friends had to dodge the rotten cabbages hurled at them by other women as they walked to the local Grange Hall. My grandmother said they were all afraid of even worse reprisals. But they voted.
It's been a disheartening revelation to see the viciousness leveled at Hillary Clinton by some women here at kos. Diaries are composed every day critical of things that would not draw a single negative comment if the subject were male. Evidence for the criticism is lacking. Examples: "To Hillary. Here's the money. Now where's my seat?" And "Clinton News Network = CNN." Gross speculation is the basis for lambasting our current frontrunner.
In the late 1870s, the overworked and disheartened women's rights leader Elizabeth Cady Stanton had her own revelation, about which she said: Women are their own worst enemies. She and Susan B. Anthony had their share of female detractors with whom to contend; those who lobbied against rights for "dependent" women just as Phyllis Shafly a century later would viciously (and sucessfully) lobby against the Equal Rights Amendment.
Stanton and Anthony labored long and hard to allow women the simple right to have their voices heard and their wrongs addressed by the ability to cast their votes. So long did this take that these two 19th century giants of political philosophy did not live to see women finally achieve suffrage. I'm grateful they aren't here to read some of the unsubstantiated, gratuitously negative diaries/comments posted about our first serious woman presidential candidate with a chance to actually win. Our first.
"I am one that would not vote for HRC in a general election under any circumstances. She is the Dem equivalent of Nixon."
Clinton has stacked the debates, she's stacked the Michigan primary, and the Iowa Black and Brown forum. She's insidious. I wouldn't put this past her [Friday's hostage situation in N.H.]. The woman's a neo-con.
Clinton's supporters were expressely [sic]told by the Clinton campaign in advance to boo and heckle Obama and Edwards. That is the only explanation
.
A kinder, gentler, version of Bush.
Just with more hair and rounder cheeks. And a better looking spouse
.
Over the top hyperbole?
Over 3000 American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilians have died because of Senator Clinton’s poor judgment
She is simply the most corrupt, pro-establishment candidate by a long shot.
And the summation?
Sucks to be Hillary
.
Where's the evidence Where are the sources to substantiate these vitriolic personal assaults? What is driving these spiteful remarks? Anger at Bill Clinton for selfishly disappointing us? Envy of a strong, smart, attractive woman? Fear that if HRC fails, all women will bear the blame--which translates to a basic distrust in the capability of women to succeed?
I've spent much of my adult life researching and writing American women's history and I guess I was lulled into complacency by the changes in women's circumstances during my lifetime. And then there's the happy circumstance that I am a feminist who likes men and have been surrounded in my life by really good ones: my father, husband, son, sons-in-law, brothers and friends. These men, white American-born, German-born, Chinese-American, and Lebanon-born, are educated and well-informed; they are not interested or persuaded by a call for bipartisanship in a country that is driven by financial self-interest, or in change simply for change's sake. They, like some of the men here at kos, areinterested in historic change, in the profound change of direction that an intelligent, competent women president will inevitably bring. In the change where safe food and health care for children are considered as important as guns for war. These men understand that half the voting population is female, and that at least half of the problems in this country are borne by women. And that these problems are not being addressed by male politicians.
Let's not forget the women in many Asian and African countries who are still without human rights, are still being beaten and raped and mutilated. The strong voice of a U.S. woman president might, just might, make a difference in the lives of these women. Hillary Clinton has attended every International Women's Conference in memory, so her commitment to the welfare of women and children is abundantly clear.
Do I agree with everything HRC has said or done? Absolutely not. I don't think any candidate is perfect and, being human, all make mistakes. What I do think is that, overall, Hillary Clinton is the best qualified and by far the strongest candidate we can field at this particular time in history. I'm drawn to Obama's optimism, but he doesn't display enough hard-earned practical experience and tough shrewdness to beat Republicans; Kucinich frequently wins my heart but not my head, because I know an impractical idealogue is not where Americans will place their trust. Above all else, Americans voters prefer moderation and they've proven it over and over again.
I don't ask anyone to vote for Hillary Clinton simply because she's a woman. I do ask for some civil retraint, some respect for actual facts, and that some knowledge of American history be applied when diarying and commenting--because for all American women, whether they support Hillary Clinton or not, a serious female contender for the presidency is a historic moment unlike any other.