Skip to main content

After reading the latest in a series of condescending editorials by women accusing others of their gender of betrayal or ignorance because we aren't all supporting Hillary Clinton, I finally feel like I have to speak out.  

I have held my peace out of respect for feminists, especially older feminists, to whom Clinton represents not just a female candidacy, but the triumph of women over the many hurdles and obstacles they've overcome throughout years of discrimination and frustration in a male-dominated world. I don't share the disappointment they feel, but I understand it. And so I've been respectful and said nothing.

But as the newest of these articles trickles out and encourages a certain segment of women to disregard and disdain party unity in the name of feminism--well, I have to say something now. The bitter pill these women are trying to peddle as feminism is not the feminism that I was taught by my mother and the wonderful women-and men--in my life. It is not positive. It is a negative force that needs to be addressed and challenged.

I said nothing when Madeleine Albright made the comment, "I also think it is important for women to help one another. I have a saying: There is a special place in hell for women who don't."  I understand that she is a much older woman, with a very different experience of life as a woman, and what it means to be marginalized because of your sex. As a younger woman, I was furious that a woman would suggest, even indirectly, that because I was not voting for Hillary there was a special place in hell for me--but I held my tongue anyway.

Then Gloria Steinhem wrote her editorial piece for the New York Times, and said:

What worries me is that some women, perhaps especially younger ones, hope to deny or escape the sexual caste system; thus Iowa women over 50 and 60, who disproportionately supported Senator Clinton, proved once again that women are the one group that grows more radical with age.

And still I didn't speak up. I felt sorry for Steinhem, that she couldn't or wouldn't see the progress that women have made, and wouldn't be able to understand that younger women no longer blame a "sexual caste system" or let such an idea hold them back from achieving whatever they want to. I even felt sorry for her though she stuck up for Bill Clinton at a time when I, as a feminist, was furious at him and at his wife for staying by his side.

Plenty of others have spoken out in favor of Barack Obama and/or for party unity, and the putting aside of the divisive coalitions that we Dems so often "cling" to, including one of my heroines, Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL. Michelman spoke for me, and for many women like me, when she said:

During these past many years, we have lost the sense of what we could do together, who we could be, what was possible.

That's changing.

And Barack Obama is the one changing that.

With him, greatness is again within reach.

Ellen Malcolm certainly angered me greatly when she said, "for the younger women who still believe women can do anything, Hillary is a champion," implying that younger women like me, voting for Obama, must have lost faith in themselves and in feminism.  You know what, Ellen? I do believe women can do anything. And that's why I haven't needed to put my faith in a woman candidate--because I have faith in women everywhere, and myself, to hold our own.

But this latest article? Yet another one that seems to insinuate that if you like Barack Obama, you hate women. Oh,and by the way, yet another article making reference to the Hillary Nutcracker Doll and the "bros vs. hos" t-shirts. Never mind that these were concocted YEARS ago by Republicans, not by Obama supporters.

That garbage seemed recycle from another editorial from just a few days ago by Marie Cocco, that complained about the same thing.

Then the author quotes this person:

Paula Horwitz, 84, of Pittsburgh, said some younger women "just don't understand. They'll elect a man, and the men will keep on telling the women what to do."

And finally--the last straw for me--this one:

To feminist writer Linda Hirshman, Clinton's likely defeat signals a harsh reality that future female candidates will need to consider.

"It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That's a pretty scary thing," says Hirshman. "She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable."

And now I'm pissed. Incredibly pissed. And I'm speaking out.

Guess what, angry Hillary supporters?  I'm a woman, and I support Barack Obama.  And not because I hate Hillary, or hate women, or hate myself, or am too young to understand the legacy of feminism and women in this country.

I have been a feminist ALL OF MY LIFE. When I was just a tiny kid, my favorite story was the one from the Free to Be You and Me record with Marlo Thomas--remember that, anyone?--the one about Atalanta, the beautiful princess who refused to marry a prince because she was smarter and faster than any of them. I taught my little sister about feminism and self-respect, telling her stories about Elizabeth Cady Stanton before she was old enough to read. I proudly called myself a feminist when Time declared that feminism was dead. In high school I demanded that my history teacher include a chapter about the early suffragists in our American history course. I admired my mother and my grandmother, who went to college and had careers, and I vowed to do them one better by going to graduate school. I quit jobs where I felt I was treated in a sexist manner, and finally got one where a big part of what I do is helping to make working women's lives better. I married a man who is my equal in every way, and who by the way does the dishes, cleans the house, and shops for groceries with me. I have been blessed in my luck and my upbringing, but I have also fought hard for what I have and my belief that women can do anything a man can do helped me through everything I have and have been in life.

And guess what? From the first moment he announced his candidacy, I have supported Barack Obama for President.

No, I don't think I'm a traitor. I don't think I've betrayed my sex. I'm not ignorant of history, or the struggles women have had to go through in this country to achieve what they've achieved. And you know what? I believe that women in this country struggled and fought for my right to vote so that I COULD VOTE FOR WHOMEVER I CHOOSE.  For the best candidate. For the person that would be best for women, best for men, and best for the country that I love and that has given me every opportunity in the world.

And that candidate, for me, is Barack Obama.  

See, I don't believe that feminism is about being better than men. I don't believe it's about exclusivity, or about helping only women to advance. I believe that feminism is about making sure that women have the same opportunities and doors open to them that men do. And I believe that Hillary has had, as the wife of a former president and an Ivy League grad, more doors open to her than most women OR men in this country ever will.

So please--quit trying to tell me that sexism is the reason that Hillary's campaign has derailed. Or that the many women supporting Obama hate other women, or don't understand feminism, or just don't care about helping other women. Don't tell me that Hillary's failure will be the failure of all women. Don't tell me there's a special place in hell for me because I've exercised the right to vote that women fought for, in order to vote for who I choose.  Because if that right to vote only exists to make me forever beholden to the person who possesses the same reproductive organs that I do--then what is the point of that vote in the first place? What was the point of all that fighting, all that suffering, all that women went through for equality in the first place?  

If I voted for Hillary--even though I believe that Barack Obama is the better candidate, the candidate who shares my values, the candidate that can produce real change in this country, and the candidate that can beat John McCain in the fall and help downticket Dems nationwide--if I voted for Hillary anyway, because she is a women and so am I--well, then, I would be betraying feminism.

And that is something I will never, never do.

UPDATE: Wow, thank you!!!! I was so mad I just kind of dashed this off to relieve my feelings--and came back and saw it was on the Rec list-my first time, too!! Thanks so much for all the positive comments--I'm glad to know that I'm not alone in feeling disappointed in the negative effect these recent editorials have had on the good name of feminism.

Since I'm updating, I also just want to add a comment that my husband just made: some Hillary supporters/columnists seem to forget that not all feminists are female--and that narrowing the definition to women simply limits the scope of the debate and downplays the role that men have played in furthering equality of the sexes, too.

UPDATE 2: I apologize for not seeing it earlier (too blinded by rage) but davidkc wrote a great diary on a similar line, dissecting why Hillary's loss isn't due to sexism. Good stuff here.

UPDATE 3: Holy crap! I just got back a bit ago and I can't believe how many comments are on here--thank you all so much for the feedback, and I wish I could respond to all. I do want to clarify an issue. Quite a few of the dissenting comments seemed to misunderstand my target, and I apologize here if I wasn't clear. I never meant to imply that all, or even many, Hillary supporters felt this way. I deeply respect Hillary's supporters, and I sympathize with them and the disappointment they must feel now. The target of my wrath was the Hillary-supporting folks, like Gloria Steinem and Erica Jong, who've said condescending things about young women and have implied that by not supporting Hillary, we're betraying our gender and the cause of feminism. I never meant to imply that all Hillary supporters felt this way.  Sorry if it came off that way...it was a little  rushed and impassioned.

Originally posted to Queen Alice on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:15 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips for proud feminists and Obama supporters! (563+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharoney, Pat K California, Canadian Reader, frey60, Michi, Angie in WA State, maryb2004, tmo, Ducktape, pb, Chi, oofer, Beth, usagi, muddy paws, jennifer poole, zuzu, dabize, ogre, mwm341, anju, jennybravo, AaronInSanDiego, AlanF, Ret, lrhoke, tiggers thotful spot, TrueBlueMajority, nicolemm, livosh1, sphealey, sara seattle, Eman, byteb, Psyche, LynChi, brandido, Charles CurtisStanley, rhubarb, Oracle2021, all about meme, TX Unmuzzled, autoegocrat, prfb, blksista, tithonia, gypsy, marjo, theran, object16, bumblebums, zeroooo, HL Mungo, shermanesq, bara, DWKING, ReneInOregon, Justina, bronte17, conchita, indybend, Dazy, mentaldebris, Wee Mama, Doc Allen, The 1n Only Leoni, Baldwiny, EmilyD, peace voter, SlowNomad, Pithy Cherub, CalvinV, AlyoshaKaramazov, ksh01, Patricia Taylor, mkfarkus, Katzy, samddobermann, javelina, peraspera, amanuensis, Pintlala, puck nc, juslikagrzly, bws, xeju, Chitown Charlie, Terre, fumie, Glinda, FriendlyNeighbor, rioduran, lirtydies, CocoaLove, aitchdee, ChristieKeith, Janet Strange, NMRed, webweaver, nycmom, Dube, psnyder, weary hobo, gobigblue, casperr, Nancy in LA, lezlie, Nina, synth, moltar, regnaDkciN, GN1927, Penny Century, lizah, mcfly, joliberal, betson08, AbsurdEyes, Greg in TN, arielle, RebeccaG, grrr, lcrp, sarakandel, riverlover, jmm57, bwintx, FlyingToaster, Donna in Rome, ybruti, Luftmensch, Redbug, gmhowell, Vicky, janale, tomjones, TexasLefty, Albanius, eve, Sassy, davidkc, rapala, jacortina, chumley, radarlady, 3goldens, Caesura, Ckntfld, v2aggie2, Phoebe Tea, lilypew, yuriwho, mjd in florida, El in New York, sc kitty, Philoguy, sap, TigerMom, trinityfly, Simpletonian, Lepanto, maisie, FrostyKotex, majcmb1, concerned, McMeier, Barcelona, sheddhead, Ice Blue, QuickSilver, lauramp, mozlover, blue jersey mom, skrekk, cinemabee, Isara, Sharon Jumper, FunkyEntropy, nevyn, joy221, miguelmas, Rosemary, dazed in pa, LisainNYC, empathy, JanF, chiefsjen, Snud, noweasels, ccrnjr, begone, Abacab, lcork, curiousted, jiordan, Prof Dave, dus7, Jennifer Clare, Icy, BalanceSeeker, highfive, 417els, Clytemnestra, bookmarmf, andydoubtless, seefleur, Dvalkure, Samwoman, Triscula, Logical One, mertam, Esjaydee, Wary, fou, Lurky Lu, Lefty Coaster, DarkestHour, tecampbell, birdbrain64, Aly, Tanya, FireCrow, CTLiberal, smartballs, oxley, MBNYC, SingerInTheChoir, va dare, toys, frankzappatista, blueness, lynneinfla, AmySmith, drdana, FrankieB, HGM MA, mlbx2, coolsub, christomento, blueintheface, liberaldemdave, AmericanRiverCanyon, bigchin, A Mad Mad World, DorothyT, kokoro, khereva, Cronesense, Wanda517, Loudoun County Dem, dmh44, jhecht, mamabigdog, terryhallinan, dallasdave, edsbrooklyn, dantrotheplanetman, Duccio, CTDemoFarmer, Nespolo, tbirchard, profmom, Matt Z, operculum, Jimdotz, Tenn Wisc Dem, gatorbot, grouchyfoglady, dougdilg, Seneca Doane, Giodude, ubertar, stop7997, st minutia, crose, thursdays child, theorem, MaskedKat, MadAsHellMaddie, KJC MD, Neon Mama, Empower Ink, my homeo, kafkananda, MyBrainWorks, Dem in the heart of Texas, adrianrf, oolali, Kronos Blue, zerone, Tchrldy, kelster93, galaxy33, elwior, pepper mint, roadlion, Lamil, Laughing Vergil, blindyone, whirled peas, MiniGram, Sharon Wraight, wvablue, Its any one guess, beltane, pamelabrown, Cassandra Waites, evora, Nick Blas, Jeff Y, ankey, NogodsnomastersMary, noddem, Gemina13, Horsefeathers, kyril, Tango Uniform, TexanJane, cheforacle, echatwa, a night owl, jazzyjay, GoracleFan, auctor ignotus, haruki, omegajew, priceman, binkycat, Oxy, tuckerm, mamamarti, Celtic Merlin, 1BQ, hardtoport, tempus binder, pileta, weaponsofmassdeception, SDChelle, MTmarilyn, Texanomaly, cfg, hannahlk, tbird, LincolnLight, snackdoodle, writerswrite, hummingbird4015, mtundu, George Dayton, Always Learning, imisa, RussRocks, bridoc, cantelow, eltee, Yerba Buena, Stranded Wind, Helenann, ScientistSteve, a girl in MI, jacurtz, latinadem, history geek, docb, vertexoflife, kmj2l, MingPicket, baltogeek, Fixed Point Theorem, erin r, NewHistorian, Daily Activist, Mercuriousss, Night Train, lollydee, THEpersonal ISpolitical, Parallax857, Potalian, BlueSky221, YesWeKen, Kim from Pgh PA, prgsvmama26, jwilson, dRefractor, Virginian in Spain, petral, BDsTrinity, Jentutsy, ElizabethRegina1558, moonbatlulu, Ohiobama, redrosestoo, platypus60, obiterdictum, mhopeg, olive and black, Myrrhis, TheOpinionGuy, dawnt, redstatebluegirl, sarashina nikki, The Liberty of Meat, DClark4129, sistermoon, mlandman, soms, jemjo, Robin in PA, MotherGinSling, doctorgirl, allep10, billssha, jennifersr, Craig Hickman, Shelley99, his panic, Munchkn, IDrankWhat, onetruthprevails, BlueMama, Pandababy, Petey2, tsugrad, neo43, ck4city, RoCali, augustin, cachola, cjsmom, archidem, PoliticalJunkessa, mnkinmad, Katie71, ArthurPoet, DaNang65, brushysage, sherijr, Helen in NC, Nonconformist, iampunha, zenmasterjack, teresa1958, earlyboomer, hopeward bound, FundaMental Transformation, Integrity is fundamental, nancat357, girsky, mnleger, Kelly of PA, mahakali overdrive, BA BarackUS, MizKit, chrisblask, myelinate, etara, Livvy5, karma13612, schnecke21, lilysnana, Wings Like Eagles, carmenjones, Jezreel, hamsisu, LSBuchanan, MaccaJ, Tricky, disturbed1, Mtheorist, Dorey, Wisteacher, Josselyn, Emalene, Abie, AussieJo, TenthMuse, symptomORdisease, GretaG65, Super Grover, Colorado Billy, ljfxiki, Ambboogie, mannemalon, BrooklynWeaver, LogicaLizE, ozarkspark, Lefty Ladig, ruscle, nomdegrrl, kfd313, Julia C, MT in Austin, PixyStyx, Amber6541, Just Bob, CTMTN, Anti Fanatic, berkelbees, hienmango, ladygreenslippers, smileycreek, lyingeyes, RitzBitz, flor de jasmim, GeeMa, jameschris, unertl, Snof, RomeyDa, cdnblaze, SolarAngel, Alohilani, Gator1980, doghaven, happypea, on2them, Junah, consider it, kenjisan, winkster, LaKathie, Runkus, sovery, David PA, patrickz, Jez, miss SPED, FrigginBoobs, API in DC, Loli, Oregonian Optimist, Vacationland, LaughingPlanet, ZeroVoices, TimRivers, stonepier, tash5809, BP in NJ, CandyKat, vixenflem, Tamerlano, amk for obama, Hamsun, princss6, AronBlue, Firecrawler09, abbaks, Darqhorse, cmolson63, rubarbaru, Prairie Gal, lextalionis, AxmxZ, Dancing Angel, CS in AZ, LeanneB, Devichan, kemetcc, Delore, Xopher Y, Liberal Humanist, jjmn, nolakohler
  •  thanks for sharing your thoughts on this... (30+ / 0-)

    the Oregonian has a section today called Voters Voices, where the voters are all videod and express their own views on Hillary and Obama.  

    I am happy to say that there are women who would be in Hillary's "typical" voter column that are for Obama.  Just thought I would share the voices around Oregon - and it's very fair - they have just as many Clinton supporters interviewed.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/...

    "Bigotry dwarfs the soul by shutting out the truth." - Edwin Hubbel Chapin

    by kenjisan on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM PDT

  •  As a "older" woman (0ver 50) the line of thinking (70+ / 0-)

    you describe has always been one of the major shortcomings of the femiinist movement. It was this line of thinking that brought us people like Margaret Thatcher and Gene Kirkpatrick. Would anyone say they help elevate women who were most in need. The poor, the working class were never part of that feminist equation. It was always about getting specific women into positions of power, even if they aided in thte opression of the vast majority of women around the world.

    To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men~~ Abraham Lincoln

    by Tanya on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:29:50 AM PDT

  •  The REAL issue they don't talk about (83+ / 0-)

    When you start to see these kinds of comments by Albright and Steinhem, a frightening common thread begins to run through them:

    "This is our ONLY chance."

    The problem is not with us but with them. There will be other female candidates - good, strong, qualified leaders - with considerably less polarizing baggage. The state governorships and legislatures are full of young, smart women already on the path to the White House.

    Our time WILL come, and soon. It's sad that some of the earliest feminist icons cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel, because it's getting a whole lot brighter.

  •  Well put! (22+ / 0-)

    The situation might be different if Obama showed himself to be someone who marginalizes women, which he has not done.

  •  I am a 57 year old (77+ / 0-)

    life-long feminist.  I usually don't like other people to speak for me, but I'm not sure I could have put it better than you.  Feminism isn't about hurting, excluding or getting revenge at others.  It is a positive, positive view of the world and one's self in it.

    I understand, all too well, the discrimination and mysogyny that still exists in this world.  However, I don't believe that all men are guilty of this and have been fortunate that my father and my husband have always believed in me, even when I didn't agree with them.

    White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 6/07)

    by nolalily on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:34:35 AM PDT

  •  I Vote for the Most Qualified Candidate (42+ / 0-)

    Race, colour, sex, religion, sexual orientation, hair colour should never be reasons to vote for a political candidate.

    I look for the candidate that best matches my own views -- originally that was Edwards, Dodd and Kucinich. With them no longer in the race, that left me only two choices: one who I would never vote for and one who I could accept.

    As the primary season continued, HRC lived down to every expectation I had. BHO surprised me and earned my respect by becoming a candidate I could support.

    How often has the progressive movement ridiculed the fundamentalists who only vote on the basis of two issues: abortion and same-sex marriages. Women, PoC or any other group do themselves a disservice by selecting a candidate based on only one criteria.

  •  Sen Clinton attended the Beijing women's (33+ / 0-)

    conference.
    Has she done anything during her senatorial career to realize fully any of the agenda points set for the conference some 10 years back?
    As a woman and a feminist it bothers me a lot that some feminists are backing a woman who hasn't advanced their cause even by an inch in her career.

    "Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere"

    by soms on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:44:24 AM PDT

    •  She has just played it like the boys. (20+ / 0-)

      On the other hand for comparison, look at Janet Neopolitano's gubernatorial career. It says a lot more about Janet's feminist credibility than anything Clinton has done in the senate.

      "Any road followed precisely to its end leads precisely nowhere"

      by soms on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:46:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  to be fair (11+ / 0-)

        she is a product of a generation who grew up believing that, in order to get equal respect, she needed to "be one of the guys."

        I don't think that's false, even today (look at how many comments against her voice, choice of clothing, etc), but I think it's a much less-necessary tactic than it was 30 years ago.

        I can haz sound economic policy?

        by Isara on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:52:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, (16+ / 0-)

          Have you heard Sen Obama complain about being called a "wimp," "sissy," "boy" "having a race problem" etc. Do you think if he had complained about any of the slurs tossed his way, he would still be in the race? Why is OK for Hillary to trot out the gender card at every slightest chance such as she did earlier this week saying that women have such a hard time impressing upon everyone that they are the best/smartest? She has never shied from playing the gender card. Yet she is given a pass in the media

          "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

          by zizi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:02:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  didn't say it was ok (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dem in the heart of Texas

            just pointing out the latent sexism which does still persist.

            I can haz sound economic policy?

            by Isara on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:07:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I agree (6+ / 0-)

              and I would say that we feminists must always speak out on sexism.  I deplore and reject the sexist crap that has come HRC's way.   However, that (in itself) is no reason to vote for her.

              -6.63/-6.31 Please visit the Grieving Room on Monday nights to discuss issues of mourning and loss.

              by Dem in the heart of Texas on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:18:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Sexism is a two way street (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              juslikagrzly, soms, Julia C

              You seem to be conflating different issues. Yes the media has displayed sexist attitudes toward Sen Clinton. Does that mean that Sen Obama's campaign has been sexist towards her? This latter straw argument is what the recent group of feminists protesters are making. In their book, Obama's cardinal sin is his audacity to run against her in the first place. That is what I find dangerous, bordering on totalitarianism. As if once she decided to run for the presidency then everyone should have cleared themselves out of her pathway. I'm sorry it doesn't work that way. I have grown up knowing that merit does not always entitle one to one's desires. Winning a competition fair and square does. Nuff said.

              "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

              by zizi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:21:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "You seem to be conflating different issues." (0+ / 0-)

                funny. no offense, but I'm seeing that conflation in your own comment. I was actually doing quite the opposite :)

                I wasn't talking about Obama at all, nor was I discussing her merits or shortcomings. I was merely pointing out that comments such as those (by whomever) originate from a history of sexism.

                I agree with what you say, but I'm not in any way ascribing those sorts of comments to any specific individuals, nor debating the merits of the campaign. In fact, her campaign did what it did (positively and negatively) regardless of the commentary, but the fact such comments were present at all highlights the sexism which still exists.

                I can haz sound economic policy?

                by Isara on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:45:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  She can play that card because (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            samddobermann, soms

            we women are the majority. Vote for me because I'm a woman! It's not quite like saying, Vote for me because I'm Black! She not going to offend the 54% that our gender represents on this planet. But appealing to the majority to vote for me because I belong to a minority isn't a winner. She gets to have it both ways: She makes a majority gender appeal plus accuses her opponent of being a loser racial minority. I get the strategy. Just don't call her a feminist.

            Fund the Obama campaign, not the fear campaign. Fear feeds the dragon.

            by mrobinson on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:46:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Slightly disagree. (4+ / 0-)

          I'm among those who don't care for Hillary's voice, but it's not a female thing.  I also can't stand Lanny Davis's voice.  The problem is that Hillary has a thin, tiny voice, which is where the "nails on a chalkboard" thing comes from (at least for me).  And Davis has a really whiny voice.

          I really couldn't care less about Hillary's fashion sense.  If you put a gun to my head and demand my opinion, I'd say it varies from very good to very bad.  She loses points for all the yellow, because it's a color that belongs on walls, not people.

          Obama has a good fashion sense, although I'm not a fan of ties with patterns (more a striped-suit, plain-tie guy).  He doesn't violate the basic rule of suits: Two plain, one fancy (plain suit, plain shirt, striped tie; etc).  So he's competent.

          But, getting back to the voice thing, I think Kathleen Sebelius has a fantastic voice.  It's not a gender thing.  It's that Hillary sounds like some took a Rush song and jacked the mids up to 10.

          "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought on the unthinking." - John Maynard Keynes

          by Drew J Jones on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:06:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm not defending her, her voice, or her pantsuit (6+ / 0-)

            merely pointing out that these are criticisms which are levied against her in a way which doesn't seem to be leveled against men.

            (I have to laugh at the Rush comparison, though. I absolutely hate Rush and AC/DC for the sounds of their voices. Oh SNAP!!)

            I can haz sound economic policy?

            by Isara on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:09:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Very true. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dem in the heart of Texas

              A lot of times the criticism is leveled at her in a way that I think can be considered pretty sexist.

              I just mean that the voice complaint, in my opinion, can be based on more than sexism.

              (I hate Rush, too.  God they're awful.  I love AC/DC, though.  Don't mess with Brian Johnson!)

              "Words ought to be a little wild for they are the assault of thought on the unthinking." - John Maynard Keynes

              by Drew J Jones on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:15:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Before Any Of The Media Criticism Began, When (3+ / 0-)

              Sen. Clinton was "inevitable," had a 20+-point national lead in the polls, she was DOA with the base of the party because of her unapologetic Iraq War (and PATRIOT Act) vote; because of her corporate ties; and because her triangulated flag-burning "initiative" (UGH!).

              DailyKos may not be a good indicator of the general electorate's positions but it is a better/closer representation of the party's activist base and look where Sen. Clinton started.

              Her loss was IMO "inevitable" and the blatant sexism and misogeny demonstrated by the right-wing, corporate media has had minimal impact on the outcome.

              "You can tell the truth but you better have a fast horse." - Rita Mae Brown -8.38, -5.54

              by majcmb1 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:31:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Drew - the only part of her voice (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Drew J Jones

            I have a problem with is her SINGING (the woman is completely tone-deaf, which, though no fault of her own, gives me the willies).  

            Still, this is neither a reason to vote for or against her.

            -6.63/-6.31 Please visit the Grieving Room on Monday nights to discuss issues of mourning and loss.

            by Dem in the heart of Texas on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:19:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  That's the problem. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samddobermann

          The idea that you need to vote like a repug, warmonger etc. to be "one of the guys" is repellent to women and men.

        •  On being a product of a generation (0+ / 0-)

          she is a product of a generation who grew up believing that, in order to get equal respect, she needed to "be one of the guys."

          A lot of American women belong to the same generation Clinton does. Not all of them are locked into those earlier lessons. In fact, many such women have continued to think, question, learn, modify,  and adopt new ways to understand the world and to work in it.

          Clinton was a serious contender for the Presidential nomination. I'd hope that someone who rises to this level in American society is not  boxed into the attitudes of earlier decades. I'd hope that such a person has the political acumen and intelligence to find the right path, which enables her to show strength without trying to "be one of the guys." I know, I know--might be tough to do this.

          If Clinton can't do this now, in Campaign 2008, how would she do so as President from 2009 - 2013? She would have continued in the same way until after the election of 2012. More support for war and obliterating countries until safely re-elected? Why not?

      •  I have to take exception (13+ / 0-)

        . . . playing like one of the boys is sexist as well, although the target is switched.

        Dirty politics is dirty politics and has no relation to one's gender.

  •  You speak for many of us! (43+ / 0-)

    Let me add that the 'feminists' you quoted have conveniently overlooked the fact that Hillary Clinton stands on the shoulders of her husband and would never be where she is without him. So here, here for Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina, Condelezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, women who really did break glass ceilings. Hillary is a wanttobe among this group of stellar women.

    I am a 67 year old white feminist who ran up against lots of sexism and want to assure you and the other young women out there that sexism is alive and well, it's burned into our DNA and needs to be confronted by every generation going forward. But enormous strides have been made and will continue to be made.

    Racism is much more sinister because Americans of color don't have the inherent, hard-wired, power that women do to negotiate with men [who still hold the reins of power tightly.] Just look at how many women hold high office as compared to how many blacks/hispanics/asians do in America.

    So, I stand proudly with you in support of Obama because he is by far the better candidate and will be the better president and because Hillary is the wrong woman for the job [and who the hell wants Bill back in the White House with all of his scandals vetted and not yet vetted!]

    Why doesn't anybody comment that if he'd done the decent thing and resigned when Monica blew [no pun] his cover instead of dragging the nation and his family through public humiliation, Gore would have been president in the late 90's and we'd never have had idiot George in the White House. And why do people respect Hillary for standing by a husband who had an affair with a woman her daughter's age. Wasn't that creepy enough to warrant a divorce? Do real feminists stand by men who abuse their power and position to dally with young, young women?

    •  You raise some interesting issues. (9+ / 0-)

      My inner-feminist self tends to want to be charitable toward Hillary Clinton.  So when you criticize her for sticking with Bill, I think about how difficult it might be for her and how different individuals need space to find their own paths in life--even as they make mistakes or do things that make little sense to us.

      Then I realize how hostile some people have become in the name of their feminism, on behalf of HRC, and how little respect or understanding or tolerance they have toward people who are choosing a different path.

      It's like they've constructed this narrow path that is fiercely devoted to a particular person (HRC) or path (fight for the woman, oppose the man and his supporters).  But not really committed to a wide range of feminist values that--if respected--make Barack Obama a reasonable, legitimate, acceptable alternative.

      Of course your comment shows that applying their values to themselves (i.e. embracing HRC's hawkishness, enabling Bill's sexual exploitation of a huge power imbalance and the willingness of HRC and her current supporters to minimize the implications of accepting it, etc.) ... shows that it's more complicated than they allow.

      All of a sudden, they become the font of condescension.

      What's the matter with Hillary?

      by chicago jeff on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:19:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Women who have been victims of workplace (13+ / 0-)

        harassment do NOT look kindly at Bill's actions, nor do they look kindly on Hillary's support of him.

        We do not see Hillary as the victim of marital infidelity. We see Monica as the victim of a boss who enjoyed an atrocious abuse of power.

        Divorcing him or not, I'd have liked to hear Hillary admit that there was a greater wrong done here than simple infidelity.

        •  I agree, mostly. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          TrueBlueMajority, Neon Mama

          Even if we grant the possibility that Monica herself was not harmed, Bill's behavior and our acceptance of it undermines our efforts to protect people from exploitation in the workplace.  It goes beyond the example that Bill set; Hillary's response (acceptance, minimization, rejection, etc.) is an example.  So too is the response of her supporters.

          My stance is that those who support her on feminist grounds should be tolerant of feminists who reject her or who support Obama on feminist grounds.  They should recognize from Hillary's own experience with Bill that it's complex and that diversity requires us to recognize and tolerate dissent.

          What's the matter with Hillary?

          by chicago jeff on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:53:38 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It also speaks to (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority, Neon Mama

            an appalling lack of conviction and ethics in human beings. We still screw our co-workers, still sexually harass each other, still lie in fron ot Congressional committees and still refuse to take responsibilty for our actions. "I did not have sex with that woman", "we are winning on the ground", "I am not a crook"...jeez.

            "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Graham Chapman

            by crose on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:16:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Monica (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dabize

          wanted Bill, just like any other starstruck woman who throws herself at some famous guy--you know, the groupie types, they do exist.

          Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

          by dfarrah on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:09:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't confuse a groupie with an employee (0+ / 0-)

            Especially when the "star" is not only a man old enough to be her father but also happens to be holding the title of Commander-in-Chief. Fraternizing with subordinates, last I checked, was against the rules in the military. FOR A REASON.

            •  Bill wasn't (0+ / 0-)

              in the military, not even as CIC.

              I don't have any sympathy for someone who aggressively pursued an affair with a married man [more than once, if you know her history], regardles of whether or not she was the man's employee, and regardles of either one's status in that employment.  I don't have any sympathy for men who do the same.

              They both acted immorally and Monica was not a victim in any sense of the word.

              Don't confuse consenting adults with victims.

              Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

              by dfarrah on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:11:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  As an over-50 feminist married for 37 years (9+ / 0-)

      I think we need to get over second-guessing whether Hillary should have divorced her husband over his affair.  Relationships are complex and imperfect, and I think that is a personal decision for her and I would support her right to make the choice.

      •  tbirchard (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        soms

        I agree that HRC's part in all of this is personal.

        Curious, though: do you fault Bill for more than adultery?  Is the fact that he was in a position of power part of the equation?  

        -6.63/-6.31 Please visit the Grieving Room on Monday nights to discuss issues of mourning and loss.

        by Dem in the heart of Texas on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:23:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  God bless you (6+ / 0-)

      And I don't even believe in god. lol. But thats how strongly I feel about Feminist vets like you with your massive wisdom. You cut right through what must be your own bad experiences and still see and speak the truth. You're like the black men that have lived through segregation, and yet still see  that there are good hearted white people. Or the the Iraqi who after getting bombed by Bush and Co. still realizes there is an anti war movement in America. Like most posters here, I always thought it was about equal OPPORTUNITY. Of couuuurse there is still sexism but that in no way makes Hillary's antics over the past couple months acceptable or make her a better candidate then Obama. You totally nailed it. God bless you. 67 yr old white feminists totally rock. Hillary schmillary why doesn't a woman like YOU run.  

      Join us USA, truth needs a powerful ally.

      by CanaDo on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:25:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Very well put!! (28+ / 0-)

    Someone called in on Air America on the program Ron Reagan, Jr. was doing--I can't remember now which of the segments it was for (racism, gay marriage), saying he couldn't understand why it was a problem in our society.  Reagan's response was "you're under 40, right?" The caller was 27.  Reagan:  "Exactly.  You don't understand"--his point was that for people without a direct memory of the struggles, they are more likely to be bias-free.

    In my view, voting for Obama, who wants us to be UNITED (I won't run through all the groups!) is a vote recognizing the PROGRESS we've made and showing the way to continue to move forward, while a vote for Hillary means that a token female has reached a new milestone.  

    Why?  Because that's the way she presents herself!  As a token!  Hillary reaching Mt. Everest  (pun intended).  But she offers no vision of a different society, while he does.

    (I hope this was clear...it's mealtime so I'm getting a bit fuzzy-headed)

  •  If I may.... (11+ / 0-)

    Yes Obama supporters has a right to be upset

    But ----- at this point it will serve no purpose to create a bigger chasm between the Obama supporters and the HRC supporters.

    Instead let us help Obama get more voters and supporters --

    the HRC supporters are in conflict right now - attacking them will not convert them.

    Backing off - giving them some space will -- because these women will not vote for McCain - they have fought all their lives to improve the lives of women.

    They will not do anything that will doom their daughters and grand-daughters - or agree to send their grandchildren off to Iraq via a McCain draft.

    "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

    by sara seattle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:31 AM PDT

    •  I understand where you are coming from (12+ / 0-)

      But I think many people feel that when they see something being said that seems wrong to them, they need to speak up and say so. It is not intended to hurt Clinton supporters but simply to address something that does not seem right.

      Hope is passion for what is possible. -- Soren Kierkegaard

      by lauramp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:51:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  how sad that this sensible comment (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sara seattle, Lying eyes

      doesn't have nearly as many recs as the comments of many who are eager to seize another opportunity to pile on the Clinton supporters.

      John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

      by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If these older "feminists" decide to punish Obama (11+ / 0-)

      By electing McCain or sitting it out so that Obama loses then what does that say, exactly, about their feminism? What does it say about their true selves that they would even threaten such a thing? I have zero tolerance for that kind of evil.

      Another four years of Bush policies will be THEIR legacy. Wow, what progress they will have wrought.

      The decision is theirs and kowtowing to their "feelings," pretending that it's our fault, is ridiculous. DO NOT FEED THE BEAR. They do not have a case and to treat them with kid gloves is to invite more tantrums and abuse of whatever power they think they have.

      They are not only wrong, they are DAMAGING all the progress they have made over the last century.

      •  You are wrong (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        desmoinesdem, BraveheartDC

        I did not mention that it is anybody's fault

        I am just saying that when hundred and thousands of Obama supporters are working every day to convert voters and supporters to Obama

        it just does not make sense to me -- that at the same thime here at DailyKos some people are doing everything they can to turn them away.

        So working cross-purposes against very dedicated Obama supporters that are working so hard - that is just not logical -- unless we have "visitors" !!

        "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

        by sara seattle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:10:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and make no mistake (4+ / 0-)

          there are lurkers here and at other blogs who supported Hillary and are dismayed by the kind of rants that always seem to be sitting on the rec list.

          I met one of those lurkers a couple of months ago. She has never posted a comment at DKos, but she does read it regularly.

          She volunteered for the Clinton campaign in western Iowa (Obama's weakest region of the state) and could be an asset to his campaign if she volunteered for him this fall. But why should she when she keeps reading angry rants about Clinton supporters? No one wants to hang out with people who think they are ignorant racists.

          John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

          by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:15:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  there are Obama lurkers on pro Hillary blogs that (0+ / 0-)

            read the hatred and lies against Obama and his supporters. It works both ways. No one wants to hang out with ppl who Obama supporters are ignorant sexists.

            You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

            by byteb on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:05:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  *think (0+ / 0-)

              You are a child of the universe; no less than the trees and the stars... Desiderata

              by byteb on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:06:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  right, and if Hillary were winning (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              dfarrah, sara seattle

              I would be writing comments encouraging her supporters to be gracious so that those who backed Obama would feel welcome if they wanted to volunteer for her in the general election campaign.

              Obama supporters should not repeat the mistakes made by some arrogant and hostile Clinton supporters.

              The bottom line is that Obama will be the nominee, and he will need the support of all Democrats to win the general.

              It is always in the winner's interest to be gracious toward supporters of the loser. That is why Obama applauded when John Edwards made kind remarks about Hillary in Michigan.

              John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

              by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:32:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Absolutely agreed, but Clinton also needs to (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                byteb, Philoguy, hannahlk

                set the tone for her supporters.  Many of her supporters are led by her and/or her campaign operatives to believe that Obama is fundamentally flawed as a candidate and can't win in November. And therefore, that she has a cause-a rational to remain in the race until the convention if necessary and to do whatever it takes-changing math, rules and other criteria to attempt to get the nomination.  This is why it's not easy for Obama's supporters to be as gracious as they would like to be.  

                •  New York is a tough town, El (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  El in New York

                  and politics is a contact sport.

                  Yes, many Clinton supporters think Obama is a flawed candidate who can't win in November, just as many Obama supporters think the same of Hillary. So what?

                  If Hillary were winning, I would be telling her supporters to lay off and not taunt the Obama fans.

                  John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

                  by desmoinesdem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:39:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  A vote 4 McCain is a vote against pro-choice (5+ / 0-)

        how can you really be a feminist and do that?

        If u will not vote for the Dem. nominee, no matter who that is, go apologize 2 the youth of this nation. U've helped put in "100 years of war no Choice McCain."

        by Clytemnestra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:17:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As I said in another comment (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clytemnestra, crose, mamamarti

          these women are not going to support McCain - they have worked their whole lives for womens issues.

          They are just disappointed (ok - pissed) right now because their dream of a woman president is not going to happen.

          But give them time and they will come around and support Obama -- but the more hate/garbage/insults that is coming their way from Obama supporters -- the longer it will take..

          I think we should take out clue from Obama -- I cannot imagine that he is telling HRC supporters that they are beneath contempt.

          "Proud to proclaim: I am a Bleeding Heart Liberal"

          by sara seattle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:22:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It's going to take some time -- (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sara seattle, alizard, Neon Mama, tash5809

      on both sides. I think it's healthy to express the anger now, rather than shove it down and let it fester only to break out in the open later, or to lead to an entrenched resentment.

      I think Queen Alice was petty mature and respectful in expressing the anger. That's not being divisive so much as being real. If we hope to heal the rift, we're going to have to be real.

    •  Do you think McCain would draft women? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fixed Point Theorem

      I have a hunch that part of the reason we haven't seen a draft seriously proposed yet is because Republicans want to avoid the issue of drafting women.  

      ---
      Guns don't kill people. Giant mutant insects kill people.

      by VelvetElvis on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  the problem here is too big to paper over (5+ / 0-)

      What's happened here is that an older generation of feminist leaders have tried to hijack what was once their own movement in order to deliver it to the same bunch of "old white men in suits" who built the glass ceiling whose candidates are Hillary Clinton and John "Insane" McCain aka McHillary.

      Personally, I think women finding their own voices in opposition to this is a very good thing and it's about time that this happened. I was reading the words of the original feminist leaders back when I was in high school in 1970. I believed them, I integrated their concepts into my point of view.

      In an attempt to trade in their work for personal political power, the old-time women's leaders are trying to use the same hierarchial concept of top-down messaging they used to attack. That is not a feminist message. It does not empower anyone but a favored few. It's the old style of revolution where the system doesn't change, just the people on top and the exploitation continues.

      The election isn't the only thing going on here.

      It's obvious that women are trying to trying to redefine themselves politically in response to a "women's candidate" who is trying to betray all of us, men, women, straight, LGBT, black, white, in favor of the Richistani and the Fortune 1000 CEOs Hillary's own movement, the Democratic Leadership Council, exists to serve.

      This needs doing and it looks like it's being done right here and right now.

      Don't worry about Hillary's supporters being put off by this.

      The ones who feel targeted by the "denounce and reject" language here targeted toward the people who are trying to co-opt feminist language as a tool for betrayal were never really on our side, they were always on their own, and they can go to McCain or to hell.

      The women who see feminism as equal opportunity and equal rights will stand with us against McCain.

      I think you should enjoy this. It isn't often that one sees a wave of common sense sweeping out the garbage in America, and I think what will come out of this besides a Democratic government on our side will be a revitalized 21st Century women's movement.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:34:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, get a grip. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sierrartist

        Nobody is 'hijacking' anything.  

        Your comment--It's obvious that women are trying to trying to redefine themselves politically in response to a "women's candidate" who is trying to betray all of us, men, women, straight, LGBT, black, white, in favor of the Richistani and the Fortune 1000 CEOs Hillary's own movement, the Democratic Leadership Council, exists to serve... is patently absurd.

        What a load of hyperbole!

        I know this is very, very hard for BO supporters to understand, but HRC isn't viewed by people the same way BO supporters view her--hence her level of support amongst the voters to date.

        As for all the charges in your comment, I view BO as being very similar to HRC.  For example, they both have religous beliefs, business connections, political connections, etc., that make me uncomfortable.  Unfortunately, I'll have to vote for one of them--more likely BO--for pres.

        Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

        by dfarrah on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:25:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm sorry if the truth hurts (0+ / 0-)

          Actually, I'm not sorry at all.

          The nation is far better off if our nominee isn't chosen by Hillary's "low information voter" base.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Sat May 17, 2008 at 06:41:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  one other thing (0+ / 0-)

          You are denying Hillary Clinton's Democratic Leadership Council connections and support? You are denying that she is a "Democratic centrist"? This page describes her as a member of the "DLC Leadership Team".

          Or are you asserting that Obama is a DLCer? Obama publicly demanded that his name be removed from their site. That isn't exactly an indication of strong support for the DLC.

          Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

          by alizard on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:23:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you being (0+ / 0-)

            really devisive?  Are you jumping to strange conclusions that were not even mentioned in my comments?

            So, do you think that the DLC is the only association that a liberal might find objectionable between the two candidates?

            The fact is, BO's and HRC's vote similarly, what, only 90% of the time.  Yeah, I made that number up, but it's probably higher than that based on numerous diaries that have listed their voting records.  And their policies are not wildly different [btw, I like HRC's insurance plan better than BO's plan].

            You're the sort of BO supporter who will drive wavering voters and HRC supportes away.  I assume you're volunteering for BO, or will be in the general.  Please keep your aggressive rants to yourself when you are talking to regular people; you'll be doing both BO and the dems a huge favor in the general if you tone it down.  Honey attracts more than vinegar.

            Bush's presidency is now inextricably yoked to the policies of aggression and subjugation. Mike Whitney

            by dfarrah on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:26:38 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Complex Topic (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard, dragonlilleth

        This needs to be it's own diary :)

        We actually have three discussions percolating in diary..the current election...generational feminism...and sexism

        Each are worthy of discussion in context of the 21st century Democratic Party

        "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin

        by bws on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:15:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Tell It! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        samddobermann, alizard

        I'm glad some people can see the forest for the trees. It has always been about the few holding absolute power for themselves. Their plan for keeping us segmented and divided and fighting amongst ourselves means we would not band together to stop them. But there's a whole lot of sheep that are not going to get this.

  •  The whole holding the women's votes hostage (31+ / 0-)

    thing has cheapened feminism so much.  To think that people like Gloria Steinem were willing to turn feminism into basic martyrdom in an effort to control votes based on negative emotions is so pathetic.

    There is a special place in hell for the people who are either not intelligent enough to recognize that this is what they are doing - and a warmer place for those who knew what they were doing, and did it anyway.

    If anything has weakened the likelihood of a woman winning the White House in the not-too-distant-future, it is the "victim" and "martyr" games that Hillary, her surrogates and many of her supporters have been and continue to play.  

    As a women, they (such games) repulse me.  From anyone.  And I will never vote for a president who plays those kinds of games.  And any future woman is going to have to free herself from the taint - the stench - of such games.

    "2009" The end of an error

    by sheddhead on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM PDT

    •  My belief is (8+ / 0-)

      a "victim" gives up their right to be a victim when they become a perpetrator.

      Using the tactics they have i.e. lying, guilting, baiting, hate mongering and playing the "martyr" game, Hillary and her supporters no longer have the right to call themselves victims.

      Politics is like sports, it doesn't build character it reveals character.

      by Sassy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:31:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't think Hillary's negatives (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neon Mama, Fixed Point Theorem

      attach to any women other than Hillary herself, the sellout high-profile womens' 'leaders' who tried to leverage their creation of a movement way back when into 21st Century personal political power, and the crazies.

      This is not "all women are batshit", this is "WTF is it with Hillary's crazies".

      Do you really think anyone's going to vote against the new generation of female politicians who are not known to be "in the tank" for Hillary over Hillary's disastrous run for President?

      I doubt Sebelius or Napolitano give this a second thought.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:01:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  thank you for this heartfelt diary (36+ / 0-)

    I share your feelings as well. Another thing that troubles me about some of the feminist defenses of Clinton is that it seems to minimize the difficulties that anybody else might face.

    Contrary to what Geraldine Ferraro said, it has not exactly been a bed of roses for Obama as an African-American candidate. And yes, women have been oppressed in our history, but our history also contains slavery and Jim Crow.

    Rather than setting up a contest for who has supposedly had it worse, we should all work together to fight injustice.

    Hope is passion for what is possible. -- Soren Kierkegaard

    by lauramp on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:45 AM PDT

  •  My wife and I support Obama too, but it is about (4+ / 0-)

    freaking time for a female president as well. To bad Barack is not a woman. Nice diary. ;-)

    "Interesting. No, wait, the other thing: tedious." -Bender

    by patrickz on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:48:53 AM PDT

  •  you nailed it (12+ / 0-)

    And that's why I haven't needed to put my faith in a woman candidate--because I have faith in women everywhere, and myself, to hold our own.

    The important thing about Clinton's campaign is that she pretty well showed that gender is really not as big an issue anymore. This election showed that many (not all) Americans have stopped judging people based on their skin tone or what bits they happen to be born with.

    I see this as a victory for women, that the feminist movement has made it possible that a woman can get so very far in the process and be seen as a viable candidate based on merit. I thank the feminists for that.

    It always seemed hypocritical to me to demand respect based upon individual merit, while denying it at the same time. I always thought equality was the endgame of feminism. Isn't that what we're doing here?

    I can haz sound economic policy?

    by Isara on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:49:53 AM PDT

  •  From another young woman, I agree! (25+ / 0-)

    The part in particular where I feel you're speaking for me is

    I believe that feminism is about making sure that women have the same opportunities and doors open to them that men do.

     It's not about promoting female superiority, it's about equality.  Equality in opportunity, and equality before judgment as well.  Voting for someone simply because she's a woman is just as sexist as refusing to vote for her for that reason: it's allowing gender to take precedence over qualifications.  Period.  If I vote for HRC over BHO although I prefer him as a candidate, THAT is when I betray the feminist movement as I see it, and  THAT is when I betray my own feminist ideals.  

    Amen, sister!

    "When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty."-George Bernard Shaw
    -8.38 -7.59

    by SDChelle on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:51:36 AM PDT

    •  Amen x2 (11+ / 0-)

      I always thought that feminism was unique in its ambitions for social justice and equality for ALL people and to "look to the bottom," as legal scholar Mari Matsuda has put it.

      I'm tired of this caricature of feminism (blind, unreasoned prejudice for women) that has the millennial generations, gen x and y-ers running from the f word (I'm not a feminist, but...).  Feminism has always been open (although sometimes needing to be reminded, nudged and/or pried open) to inclusive thinking and a political project that keeps trying to root out, address, and redress the oppressions of our times.

      We need to reclaim feminism from the parody it has become in the media, from the RNC and social conservatives, and HRC surrogates.

    •  thanks! It may be because we're younger (7+ / 0-)

      that, thanks to what went before, we have a more hopeful vision of feminism and equality. But it doesn't mean that we've forgotten what went before--like you say, we only do that if we vote against our preference!

      •  add Karen Cooper (WA NARAL) to that list (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dale145

        See Karen's email, below.  It was forwarded to me by a friend who has supported her for years, but is shocked by Karen's distancing herself from Obama:

        On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:00 PM, Karen Cooper <info@prochoicewashington.org> wrote:

            As you may have heard, today NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC announced its endorsement of U.S. Senator Barack Obama for president.    

           I wanted to let all of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington's supporters know the story behind the endorsement.  None of us here, myself included, knew about it until a phone call this morning from D.C., and at that point it was a done deal.  To be clear, we at NARAL Pro-Choice Washington remain neutral in the race between Senators Clinton and Obama.  We strongly disagree with NARAL Pro-Choice America's decision to endorse at this time.

           Both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama are 100% pro-choice and have been vocal advocates for the right to choose.  Both are co-sponsors of the Federal Freedom of Choice Act, which would put the protections of the Roe v. Wade into federal law.  To endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton.

           Furthermore, I want to make sure you know there is no transfer of funds between our affiliate and NARAL Pro-Choice America.  We are separate entities.

           As I write this to you, our Board of Directors is planning a meeting to discuss our affiliate's next steps.  We will keep you updated on what we decide.

           Please read our press release on the endorsement.

           Thank you,

           Karen S. Cooper

           Executive Director

  •  I'm a 37yo feminist (30+ / 0-)

    I have never stopped supporting Hillary, because I've never started. I've found her barely acceptable at times, but infuriating to my feminist side often.

    I have been working outside the house since age 17. Now an analyst. Even though I've never been a stay at home mom, I've never forgotten the insult to full time moms with her "baking cookies" statement, and the Tammy Wynette dig. She really disrespects any woman that isn't running with the big dogs in the corporate world.

    She does have strengths, but feminism isn't one that I see.

  •  What bothers me is that (28+ / 0-)

    Clinton ran the most testosterone (sp)? fueled campaign in history what with the

    snipers
    toughness
    boilermakers
    cojones
    testicular fortitude
    obliterate

    I have expected her to challenge Obama to an arm-wrestling match.

    Maybe if she had run as a woman she would have fared better.

  •  Hey - I'm only a person (4+ / 0-)

    and I proudly support Hillary based on the issues, her record and solutions.
    It's difficult to hold "hope and change" accountable for anything.

  •  Hillary who? (6+ / 0-)

    It's the constitution, stupid

    by CTMET on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:58:36 AM PDT

  •  I'd like to see a woman (7+ / 0-)

    run against a woman. Then feminists would have to look at the issues and not the gender.

    John McCain '08 - Hope Less!

    by kitebro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:00:30 AM PDT

    •  Don't paint feminists (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      v2aggie2, El in New York, catchaz

      with such a broad brush. Many feminists did look at issues, not gender. But with such a narrow gap between the two candidates on most issues, this primary has (at least since Edwards dropped out)become about other things: Character. Inspiration. Trust.

      But also, whether we like it or not, race and gender.

      "I do not equate my oppression with the oppression of blacks and Latinos. You can't. It is not the same struggle, but it is one struggle." Bob Kohler

      by dedmonds on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm just making an observation. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Canadian Reader

        I've seen a number of cases (like the NARAL endorsement and the reaction to it) that ignores issues and and focuses on gender. Hillary lost the black vote because of what the Clintons said and did this year. Obama did nothing to lose the 45 and older woman's vote. But he never had it. And as you say, the two are very close on issues.

        John McCain '08 - Hope Less!

        by kitebro on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  we don't all share a brain. There are large (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nancy in LA, empathy, galaxy33, Alohilani

      numbers of feminists who have supported candidates other than Clinton because we disagreed with her positions and/or thought another candidate's positions were better.

      IGTNT: Remembering our fallen soldiers

      by a girl in MI on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:17:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Amen, sister! (9+ / 0-)

    And I'm one of those "older" women (56) who has been a radical most of my life.

  •  The blog tour (10+ / 0-)

    I once a week go to Clinton blogs.  Taylor Marsh, Talkleft, Leftcoaster and MyDD to name a few.  I do this because frankly we can get a little carried away with the HRC hate and Obama is perfect routine, so I try to sprinkle in some reality.  

    For the most part I find the bloggers on aforementioned tour and others to be straight up, honest and forthright but of course there are exceptions.  That being said Obama bloggers have just as many that refuse to see reason.  

    I am not afraid to admit I really like Left Coaster and other blogs that are not pro-Obama.  They do good work outside of the realm of HRC v Obama.  We can all find fault in blogs across the spectrum but I honestly believe despite some of the nonsense it is a great thing we have these forums denied us so long by snide corporate media types.  

    Yes we will have to read that Obama is the most sexist candidate ever to breathe and HRC supporters will rush to Mccain in protest. However, we also should not be so quick to dismiss HRC out of hand every chance we get.  She is a strong and intelligent lady that if she had won the nomination I would work to get her elected.  

    Bottom line it is time to come together.  We can blog all night n day with hand wringing disgust at Taylor Marsh but HRC fans can find em as well; Andrew Sullivan anyone?  These two are among the many berks that litter the blogesphere... Yet we should not forget that ultimately we need a Dem in the whitehouse and anyone that wants to act like it is an act of "courage" to vote for that sham express is frankly someone we could do without anyway.

    The day a flag pin = a purple heart a conservative might have an orgasm....nah

    by jessran72 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:02:33 AM PDT

  •  This from just another white guy (9+ / 0-)

    At least neither of our candidates is just another white guy, for a change. And that's pretty much all you have to choose from with the other party. I'm certainly not voting for Obama because I'm anti-women or anti-feminism; that's got nothing to do with it at all.

    If HRC had pulled it off, I would've had no problem voting for her. I think a female president is a damn good idea. It just didn't work out that way this time around. It will some day though.

    This ain't no party. This ain't no disco. This ain't no foolin' around!

    by Snud on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:04:23 AM PDT

  •  Agree, Agree, Agree, we can't expect preferential (12+ / 0-)

    treatment because we are women either.  I have sons and a daughter, I'm 49 and a rabid feminist and that means I fight for the respect of human beings to be who they are meant to be.  Not just because of one's gender.  

  •  Hillary has offended (29+ / 0-)

    this feminist by what comes out of her own mouth. I'm an old white college educated woman, I do not believe that aping the worst qualities of aggressive knuckle dragger's makes on a feminist. Carl Sagan once said that until the government is balanced with more of the feminine we won't be able to progress. Gender alone is not enough. Obama's not running around chest thumping or playing good ol boy one minute and victim the next.

    This is not something new with HRC when the Clinton's opted to bomb and sanction Iraq how many children in villages did they kill? When she speaks of Obliterating Iran is this the talk of a feminist. The list is endless Wal Mart, 'I'm did it to protect women'? What about the women and Children affected by NAFTA and China?  Welfare reform? No thanks Hillary you seem to me to be too tough and proud of your cajones, for me to evcer consider you a feminist. I'm not your girl.  

    "And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan

    by shaharazade on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:04:36 AM PDT

  •  Something for the older feminists to think about. (9+ / 0-)

    Even if you do not hear it...is that while the battle is not "won" (if it may ever be so,) I thank you for making it possible to be where I (a 34 year old) am today.  

    Even better, the 18 year old college students I teach don't have to deal with problems that even I had to face.  Most don't look upon sexism as something to be outraged at; they look at it as a sign of being irrelevant in today's society.  IMO, that's a sign of real progress.    

  •  From my 54 year old mother (35+ / 0-)

    a former union steward who fought tooth and nail to get equal pay and equal rights instituted at a mass production bakery in the seventies... from me, a 26 year old wheelchair basketball playing, jeans and t-shirt wearing, lifelong science and political geek (and Obama delegate)... and from my sister, who's built like a linebacker and looks a million times better in a dress than my mom or I ever will (and loves to wear them)... thank you, thank you, thank you for this diary.

    Feminism is having the freedom to choose.

    That's the lesson my union steward mom taught us, and it's a lesson we all hold dear... me, the petite tomboy, my sister the stocky girly-girl, and my mother, one of the strongest women I know, all 100 lbs of her.

    These three Obama women vote on what's said, not who's saying it.

  •  You and I are on the same wavelength today! (10+ / 0-)

    I too have been fuming about recent opinion pieces I've been reading that try to blame Hillary's loss on sexism, and I jotted down my feelings in my diary this morning.  But you did a better job than I in exposing the "reverse sexism" in the argument that you must vote for Hillary if you are a feminist.  I thought the whole point of feminism was to treat women the same as men, and to not treat them differently just because they are women.

  •  Obama has embraced a more feminine approach (12+ / 0-)

    Hillary has run her campaign as if she were a man, not as a female.    

  •  You took the Madeline Albright quote (9+ / 0-)

    way out of context...when she talks about women supporting each other, it has nothing to do with Hillary. The only mention of Hillary's campaign in that piece is the question about whether she'd be Secretary of State if Hillary won, and she said no. This kind of spin seems to infect way too many candidate diaries (i.e. equally prevalent in places where Clinton supporters post).

    There is no need to indulge in this sort of attack, anyway, those who remember the feminist movement of the early seventies should remember that it was essentially without leaders. The most important legal advance in civil rights for women happened before the movement did...when the dixiecrats thought they were adding a "poison pill" to the civil rights act by making it illegal to discriminate in employment and accomodation on the basis of sex. It was an accidental victory that women picked up and ran with, we didn't need leaders.

    It's sad that some women are so wrapped up in the idea of having a woman as POTUS that they forget the most important things, like peace, restoring the constitution, making the world a better place for children to grow up in. I think it matters far more what a candidate stands for than what color or sex they are. At any rate, I have no doubt that the vast, vast majority of Democratic women of ALL ages will happily support Obama.

    "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

    by Alice in Florida on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:07:56 AM PDT

  •  Thank you so much (30+ / 0-)

    for writing this diary. As a 48 year old feminist (with a degree in Women's Studies), wife, and mother, I have had my share of conversations explaining why Hillary isn't my choice.  Watching the candidates, I have been impressed with Obama's calm and empathetic style. His belief in reaching out to all people, listening carefully, always tempering his responses in a thoughtful manner is what makes him a great person to lead.

    The interesting thing is that many of the characteristics he embodies have traditionally been identified as "feminine." Feminism isn't simply about allowing women to do what men have traditionally done. The larger point of feminism (which I believe has gotten lost) is questioning whether the behavior and characteristics that have been traditionally defined as "masculine" are ones that assist in the elevation and equity of humankind.

    When I see a person embody characteristics that I believe will support and encourage the growth of humankind, then I don't give a rat's ass if that individual is male or female. The point is if Obama were a woman, I'd still be voting for "her."

    "Forget the myths the media's created about the White House. The truth is these aren't very bright guys."

    by Ret on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:08:21 AM PDT

    •  same age (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      samddobermann, empathy, blueness

      feel like I'm the bridge between remembering how bad it was in the 50s & 60s, seeing how far we've come  and knowing there is still more to do to change a patriarchal society.

      When I got divorced and had a feminist re-awakening in 1996, I went through a brief phase of male bashing and discovered the Goddess. But it wasn't long before I made room again for the God. As I  was figuring out what kind of witch I was going to be, I knew I could not be part of a sect that excluded men or considered women superior. I finally settled on Reclaiming, here's an excerpt from an "About Us" article by M. Macha Nightmare

      Reclaiming is a community of San Francisco Bay Area women and men working to unify spirit and politics. Our vision is rooted in the religion and magic of the Goddess — the Immanent Life Force. We see our work as teaching and making magic — the art of empowering ourselves and each other. In our classes, workshops, and public rituals, we train our voices, bodies, energy, intuition, and minds. We use the skills we learn to deepen our strength, both as individuals and as community, to voice our concerns about the world in which we live, and bring to birth a vision of a new culture.

      Thus, unlike most other Craft traditions, including one of its foundations, Faery Tradition, Reclaiming has always espoused a connection between spirituality and political action.

      and we have grown far beyond San Francisco , of course. One thing I really like about my community is the inclusiveness, we have all ages,genders, colors, lifestyles, and it seems to me the Obama campaign echoes that and so many of our values.

      -7.75, -6.05 The point of the war in Iraq is that there IS a war in Iraq- Keith Olbermann

      by nicolemm on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I wonder... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, empathy, tash5809

      At what point we can retire the word, "feminist"?  While I recognize that some men and not just women (and that's great) refer to themselves as feminists, have we not journeyed to the point where, in the interest of our country and society and as progressives, at least, we are all feminists?

      I'm old enough to remember the struggles of the 70's and the launch of Ms. Magazine and have fought against gender bias myself.  I'm young enough to have taken my right to choose for granted, at least until the advent of the Bush Administration.  Perhaps I have one foot each in two different waves.  And so when I hear someone refer to him- or herself as a feminist, part of me thinks, "well, of course - aren't we all?".

      Are my glasses too rosy?

      It's a dangerous thing, being born. ~The Kite Runner

      by Nancy in LA on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We should keep the word (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nancy in LA, alizard

        but adapt our sense of what constitutes a "feminist agenda" to twenty-first century needs.  While terrific progress has been made, we are all definitely NOT feminists, and I think the word helps us keep the argument alive and well.  Women still make 75 cents to every dollar that men earn, for example.  

        I think people need to be better educated about what "feminist" and "feminism" can mean.  This article and the comments are contributing to that kind of conversation, which is great.  It's too bad that much of the public conversation about sexism right now is a misdirected one that is fueled by disappointed Hillary supporters.

        I sure WISH Clinton had been a savvy feminist and had made a brilliant speech about gender and politics.

  •  Hardcore Clinton supporters are MISOGYNISTS (21+ / 0-)

    They tear down every female that supports Obama (Michelle, Pelosi, Brazile, McCaskill, Sebelius, even NARAL, not to mention all the non-political, average voters!) in the most sexist ways. They refuse to uphold the fight for abortion rights if Hillary were to lose, choosing instead to support a man who actually wants to know how to "beat the bitch."

    They defend the patriarchal language of the Clinton campaign, linking "cojones" and "testicular fortitude" with strength. How would they like it if Barack responded to that with "Well, I don't have a pussy, so you can trust me to make national security decisions"? Because that is what those cojones jokes really intended.

    It's disgusting. The average Clinton supporter is a great person, but the Hillaryis44 crew are obsessed with nothing but voting a woman into the Oval Office.

    I mean, how bad could Senator John McPalpatine possibly be?

    by terra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:10:09 AM PDT

    •  I remember the invective (5+ / 0-)

      that was spewed on this site when a group of feminists published an open letter essentially stating that their views on war led them to support Obama over Clinton. These feminists were respectful and considerate of other views, but the response to them was that they were quite simply by virtue of their decision to support Obama not feminists, and that all their prior work on behalf of the movement was essentially nullified by this one position.

      It was absolutely shameful.

    •  what an odd thing to say (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snstara, vesticular

      Which hardcore Clinton supporters are advocating that people choose McCain over Obama? Only a very small minority.

      The feminists who are disappointed that Hillary is losing the nomination will vote for Obama in overwhelming numbers.

      John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

      by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:45:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wake up! (0+ / 0-)

         Every single time I peek at Hillary Clinton's official blogs, I see post after post after post saying "I'd vote for McCain before I'd vote for Obama" (except, usually, they call him "that jerk" or "Bambi" or "the smooth talker." @@

         And if you go over to Hillaryis44.com, the sentiment is exactly the same (but the derogatory language is much, much worse.)

        •  I never go to Hillaryis44.com (0+ / 0-)

          but I do know a lot of real-life Clinton supporters, and none of them match the caricature terra is describing.

          John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

          by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:39:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Anyway, you were specifically (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            samddobermann

            talking about feminists, who will overwhelmingly vote for Obama in the GE.  To suggest otherwise is to insult said feminists...as if they were so inconsistent and hysterical that they would cut off their nose to spite their face.

            Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - G. MacDonald

            by vesticular on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:48:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Have you been reading blogs (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        alizard

        MYDD; Hillaryis44; NARAL. They're all screaming bloody murder and decrying the end of the world because of the support that Obama has. Claiming that Obama doesn't support women's rights...with no mention of McCain.

        •  actually (0+ / 0-)

          Jerome Armstrong has repeatedly said at MyDD that he would vote for Obama if he's the nominee--he just prefers Clinton.

          A small minority at MyDD advocate for McCain over Obama, and I have taken them to task just as I have clashed with the Obama supporters here who swear they'd never vote for Hillary in the general.

          John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

          by desmoinesdem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:47:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Well said (15+ / 0-)

    Especially this:

    Because if that right to vote only exists to make me forever beholden to the person who possesses the same reproductive organs that I do--then what is the point of that vote in the first place? What was the point of all that fighting, all that suffering, all that women went through for equality in the first place?  

    I am a white upper middle class woman who came of age in the days when Ruth Bader Ginsberg was not ON the court but was arguing in front of the court seeking to obtain equal treatment for women and men. Much progress has been made.  I personally have benefitted greatly from the feminist movement, more than many other women of different colors and economic classes, and I appreciate all who went before me.

    But each woman has the right to make up her own mind.  And imo each woman has the obligation to make up her own mind - or else why did women fight for the vote?  

    I understand that this piece isn't really about Hillary - it's about the women who hold themselves out as spokespersons for the feminist movement and seek to control us because we are women.   We should not let ourselves be controlled by women or men.  

    Live in St. Louis? Meet fellow bloggers at "a blograiser" at the Royale on May 21.

    by maryb2004 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:11:43 AM PDT

  •  You expressed my views excellently. Thanks. (5+ / 0-)
  •  I am a lifelong feminist who supports Obama! (13+ / 0-)

    I used to be on the board of the NYC Chapter of NOW in the 1980's.  During that time, I've volunteered thousands of hours towards fighting for reproductive rights and was involved in tons of actions during that time.   I voted for Hillary Clinton in February, but soon after realized that Barack Obama was the best candidate, and the candidate who has the most integrity and who could best win in November.  

    My mother and sister-in-law, who were Hillary supporters up until a couple of weeks ago, also have no problem now supporting Obama as the presumptive nominee.   They understand that we're one SC justice away from losing the right to choose.  And they understand that we must beat George Bush with our best candidate, whomever that is- be it male or female.  

    The so-called diehard HC supporters seem to have lost their view of the forest for the trees.   The recently outspoken voices of the new "feminist campaign" for Hillary and against Obama is just another tool that the HC is using.  This meme is either a flat out myth, or is a severely overblown exxageration.

    •  Thanks! And you're right--beating McCain (5+ / 0-)

      --another Bush term--is way more important than any divisions we've drummed up amongst ourselves.

      •  what a strange thing for you to say (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        snstara, Lying eyes

        having just written a rant that can only deepen the alienation many Clinton supporters feel from the Obama-loving crowd.

        You should listen to what sara seattle wrote upthread.

        If you care about beating McCain, show a little more empathy and a lot less hostility toward the hardcore Clinton supporters.

        John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

        by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:46:54 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  not really fair... (0+ / 0-)

          her rant was against the feminist "elders" out there who are putting forth a very distorted image of feminism....not against HC.

          •  and that rant will be alienating (0+ / 0-)

            to many Hillary supporters.

            When your candidate is winning, it makes no sense to rub the losers' face in it and pile on, which is what the diarist and hundreds of commenters are doing.

            Instead of attacking feminists who supported Hillary, they should be trying to show that Obama supporters can find common ground with the feminists who supported Hillary.

            John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

            by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:36:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  How long should we show empathy? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samddobermann, Philoguy, galaxy33

          I've waited for months, and the comments just keep get nastier and nastier. I don't feel like this was hostile toward Hillary supporters in general--it certainly wasn't directed at them. I simply wanted to address those who call themselves feminists, while demeaning women who don't agree with them by supporting Hillary. That's not all, or even many, Hillary supporters. (I would hope!)

          •  if your goal is to get Obama elected (0+ / 0-)

            it makes no sense to pile on supporters of the losing candidate. It amazes me that so many Obama fans fail to understand that. What does another anti-Hillary rant here do to help Obama get elected?

            Whatever goal you had in mind when writing this rant, it comes across as hostile to Hillary supporters. I also feel there's a double standard when you get to the top of the rec list for saying why should I vote for Hillary just because I'm a woman, while a Clinton supporter who questions why black people should automatically vote for Obama is called racist.

            John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

            by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:41:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The diary isn't a rant against Hillary supporters (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              samddobermann, Queen Alice

              It's a response to attacks claiming women who support Obama are not feminists.

              Queen Alice (and the rest of us) have the right, as thinking feminists and FREE WOMEN, to vote for the candidate we believe best advances the ideals of feminism.

              •  as I have said elsewhere in this thread (0+ / 0-)

                and in countless other threads and diaries of my own, I supported Edwards for president, not Hillary.

                Your feelings about the feminists who support Hillary are less important than the fact that Obama is winning, and it's in his interest to be gracious toward Clinton and her supporters.

                John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

                by desmoinesdem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:49:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  You are an apologist and will continue to make (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              alizard

              EXCUSES FOR BAD BEHAVIOR. You are like the mother of a child that committed a crime who talks about how delightful they were when they were younger. You will dismiss  as a means of negating legit claims instead of addressing them.

              •  on the contrary (0+ / 0-)

                I have criticized Clinton and her campaign on many occasions. Most recently, I wrote several posts criticizing her position on the gas tax. (Here is one link, and here is another.)

                But at this blog, I see much more counter-productive behavior coming from Obama supporters.

                You don't seem to get that when you are winning, it's stupid to mock and taunt supporters of the loser, or to compare the loser to a criminal.

                Obama needs the Clinton supporters to feel welcome in the Democratic Party he is going to lead.

                John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

                by desmoinesdem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:54:51 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  True equality is achieved when our candidates (12+ / 0-)

    are held to the same standards, regardless of gender. To vote for Hillary because she is a woman is demeaning to women everywhere, and to cry sexism dilutes the force of the argument in cases where it is real.

  •  Queen Alice! Excellent Diary!! Your line: (7+ / 0-)

    because I have faith in women everywhere, and myself, to hold our own.

    brought me to tears. It's a beautiful sentiment and one that resonated with me.

    The implication in ALL these women's argument is that, women MUST elect a woman candidate because otherwise we're keeping ourselves down. But what if I don't want to vote for a woman--precisely because she insists on acting with the type of aggression typically associated with male behavior?

    I believe in ALL women (as well as men), everywhere, who hold THEMSELVES up as examples of FEMINISTS I don't need to elect ONE woman somewhere to affirm MY feminist principles.

    HOPE: It's the new black.

    by Samwoman on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:14:34 AM PDT

  •  Excellent rant and I'll add to it (17+ / 0-)

    I've said over and over that I have big f-ing problems with the unwittingly exclusionary rhetoric being articulated by do-or-die Clinton supporters.  In the zeal to continue to slice and dice the electorate based upon birth characteristics rather than ideological worldview, they've left black women out of the equation entirely-except when convenient to make the argument that a similarly postured black woman wouldn't have made Obama's gains, as Steinem sloppily argued months ago in the NYT.  Myself and my mother agreed, "oh, Steinem remembers black women exist?  Who knew?"

    Maybe some of us don't find anything feminist about warmongering, or divisiveness, or encouraging people to remain so entrenched in tribalism, that we're all robbed blind, with women and children as usual catching the worst hell because of it.  Imost certainly don't find people who lie about others' antichoice records feminist, as such makes a mockery of people who have devoted their lives to ensuring that women retain reproductive choice:

    Attacks by Hillary Clinton's campaign on Barack Obama in the days before last month's New Hampshire primary have reverberated in the state's pro-choice community long after the candidates moved to other states.

    The anger and frustration among some members of the pro-choice community are rooted in two attacks: a Clinton flier that questioned Obama's voting record on abortion rights in Illinois, and a letter, signed by New Hampshire pro-choice activists, that implied Obama had "ducked" when abortion rights were at stake. Obama backers say the attacks misrepresented his votes and, in the hectic final days of a hard-fought contest, turned some voters against him. Clinton narrowly beat Obama here, in part due to support from women.

    "What complicated the very misleading attack on Obama was that a number of very prominent leaders in the state signed it," said state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, a Portsmouth Democrat who served as a co-chairwoman of Obama's New Hampshire campaign. "I think it was extremely unfortunate that the Clinton campaign used such an emotional issue in a way that has created very hard feelings within the pro-choice movement."

    I trust Obama to hold fast to his values much more so than Clinton.  They've been very careful to not accuse black women of sex-traitorism, but perhaps that's because in these bs tribal contests, we don't count at all.

    Sorry for the rant, but I'm rec'ing your rant with great enthusiasm.

    •  "they've left black women out of the equation" (7+ / 0-)

      yes, this is exactly why I find this whole idea that "women" support or should support Clinton so infuriating.  It is an appropriation of the term "women" to really mean "white women," and "those other women" don't count.  Apparently young women don't count either because they are so brainwashable??

      •  I'm so happy her strategy didn't win (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        samddobermann, lirtydies, Neon Mama

        I just couldn't be happier about that.  Divide-and-conquer has worked for so long in this country, and finally, a viable progressive response to it.  I'm just enormously grateful to Democratic voters, staffers, and volunteers who worked tirelessly to give this country a chance.

        •  I actually think Clinton's campaign (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samddobermann, GN1927

          began to tank at that precise moment she decided to try and play this card.  After the poor October debate they came out with the "politics of pile on" ad, and all her surrogates, as well as Clinton herself, were implying that she was a victim of sexist attacks.  Chances are she could have rebounded from the poor debate performance, but she sealed the fate of her campaign when she started pushing the victim narrative.  You can't run for POTUS-- i.e., leader of all citizens --by giving the impression that you will disproportionately represent one group of citizens to the detriment of the others.  The victim strategy simultaneously managed to piss off women who conceive feminism not as a rant about how they are victims but as a platform of feminine affirmation, while also pissing off everyone else who respects fair and tough questioning as a part of the political process of democracy.  Clinton, her supporters, and surrogates were basically telling everyone in the country that any questioning of Clinton is sexist or that there can be no legitimate questions about Clinton's rhetoric (none of the questions at that debate were illegitimate).  She also managed to activate rightwing reactionary myths about minorities using charges like "sexism!" as bludgeons to their own advantage.  It was a dumb move all around and they should have known better.

      •  Right! Cynthia McKinney is running (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        samddobermann, kemetcc

        and where is this mass push of feminist support for HER campaign! Oh...she's Black I forgot and Hillary's only interested in the white people.

    •  Well said, GN1927 (0+ / 0-)

      Well said.

      AAPI Wellesley grad in Austin for Obama! Travis County delegate, Pct. 277 - 3/29

      by lirtydies on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:24:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your husband is a lucky man, Queen Alice (7+ / 0-)
    You're bright, strong, and outspoken. Good luck to both of you.

    Replete with "misstatements" and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions.--Carl Bernstein on HRC's record.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:15:27 AM PDT

  •  I respectfully disagree... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    desmoinesdem, snstara, Lying eyes, gavrik

    See, I don't believe that feminism is about being better than men.

    Absurd. Who ever said that is was?

    I believe that feminism is about making sure that women have the same opportunities and doors open to them that men do.

    Media Matters recently said that the calls for Hillary to quit are unprecendented for a candidate -- male or female -- in her position.  MSM has called her nurse ratchet, bitch, whore, cunt, compared her to a cat, and repeatedly said she was mentally unbalanced.  

    •  MSM has called her all those things? (20+ / 0-)

      Really???  Please support with evidence if you are going to say things like that.

      Calls for Hillary to quite are unprecedented.  But then, I believe that her continuing to fight on and to fight quite dirty well past the point where there is any mathematical possibility that she will capture the nomination is also unprecedented.  If you can find me a precedent of a primary campaign even remotely like the Clinton Bataan Death March of a sinking and ever-increasing-in-debt battleship of March and April, then I will concede that calls for her to quit are somehow the product of gender bias.

      •  Unless The Rude Pundit has become MSM (5+ / 0-)

        I think it is unlikely she has been called a cunt.

      •  OK... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gavrik

        Bill Maher called Hillary Clinton a cunt and their is a political action committee dedicated to solely to destroying Hillary Clinton with the acronym C.U.N.T.

        Air America host Randy Rhodes was fired from Air America for call Hillary a whore and David Schuster was suspended for referring to Chelsea as a prostitute.

        And everything else is easily available with a simple google search.

        •  You are lying. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dazy, Philoguy, hannahlk

          Bill Maher did not call Hillary Clinton a cunt.  Here is the clip:

          David Schuster did not refer to Chelsea as a prostitute either:  he used a colloquialism that I myself have used many times (for example, that John Edwards "pimped" the AUMF hard) to accuse the Clintons of "pimping" Chelsea to superdelegates.  Only someone looking for an excuse to get their knickers in a twist would pretend that he'd called Chelsea a prostitute.  The P.A.C. - first of all as far as I have ever been made aware the P.A.C. consists literally of a logo and that is all - is bizarro right wing fabulation, and has nothing to do with the MSM.

          Yes, Randy Rhones did call Hillary a whore.  It was not nice.  And she was promptly fired.  So this is representative of MSM how?

          So your points about the MSM basically all fall flat.

          •  OK -- you are right (0+ / 0-)

            He did not call her cunt, he referred to her vagina as a cunt. I had misheard it, but I think it was completely uncalled, unnecessary, and it is still offensive. Newsweek printed Karl Rove calling her a bitch, Glen Beck caller her a bitch on CNN, Chris Mathews has said she was witchy and compared her to Nurse Ratchet. Don Imus has called her every name in the book. Go over to media matters and look through some of the stuff that has been said this election cycle about Clinton.

    •  Please support (8+ / 0-)

      your claims that the mainstream media, i.e. the network, cable and print news organizations, have called Hillary Clinton a cunt, whore, and bitch.

      "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Graham Chapman

      by crose on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  From Erica Jong's column (8+ / 0-)

    So here we go again. NARAL loves the new boy on the block -- even if HRC was there at its founding. So does John Edwards. And Ted Kennedy. The fact that Barack has little experience makes him the hot new ingénue, whereas Hillary is old like your mother.

    The truth is we know about her -- and we know very little about Obama. That alone makes her detractors scream: Get Out! Off the stage with you! Give us that hot new boy! Give us that sepia Brad Pitt! Old women are so over!

  •  I wonder if it occurs to anyone to compare (26+ / 0-)

    the amount of grief Reverend Wright has taken for his so-called racism with some of these insufferably sexist and stupid comments of older feminists like Steinem.   Let's face it:  people who build careers on a certain ideology tend to get stuck in the past and fail to see clearly either the present or the future.

    "Sexual caste system" indeed.  Look I am 42 and I was a Women's Studies major and I know what feminists are talking about and all that, but there comes a time when you need to throw off the shackles of ideology first and foremost.  No one - black, white, female, male - can grow up to become a full human being as long as they are  beholden like that.  Absorb the insights, learn, understand . . . but go forth into the world to be your own full and complete person.

    Kudos on a nice diary.

    And my favorite was always "William Wants a Doll."

  •  Agreed wholeheartedly!! (15+ / 0-)

    This "you are betraying feminism if you don't vote Hillary" is just as offensive to me as I'm sure "you must vote for Barack if you're black" is to many blacks.  The underlying message is that you aren't allowed to think for yourself.

    I have to say, as a 45-year-old woman, I'm shocked by these articles.  I came from probably the first generation when women really did know they could do anything and were encouraged to do so.  In fact, it never occurred to me that I COULDN'T do whatever I wanted -- gender issues just never came up in my household.  We were very poor but I was always smart and it was just assumed that I would somehow go to college (even though no one else in my family ever had).  

    I did go to college -- graduated in a profession that was male-dominated (computer science) and am now in an even more sexist profession (law).  I've always been a feminist specifically BECAUSE it never occurred to me that I couldn't do anything I wanted.  Yes, I did encounter and still do encounter discrimination.  But you know what?  Overcoming the ENORMOUS economic obstacles to go to college and actually graduate was much, much harder to deal with.  

    I realize this is rambling, but I guess my point is that I understood that the feminism was all about encouraging women to make their own choices, think for themselves, and overcome any obstacles.  I did that.  So now why should I be criticized if I continue to think for myself?  I was never a lemming and am not about to start now.

  •  sexism? yes, it's real, of course. and will be (14+ / 0-)

    until women are fully represented everywhere, and make as much money as men do. But Clinton has benefited from the sexism of our society, too -- one good example was the reaction to Sen. Clinton's tears in NH. What would've happened to Obama's campaign, to Edwards' campaign, if either of them had cried after an early primary loss? Y'all know. and so does Cocco, Steinem, and the rest.

    These American so-called "feminists" who put their loyalty to Sen. Clinton's gender ahead of her Iraq vote and all the "I'm just as much of a hawk as any man" manly baggage she brings (McCain passed "the commnander in chief test, while Obama hasn't -- the test apparently being cheerleading for any U.S. military adventure, no matter how reckless, badly planned, immoral and/or illegal it might be?) might want to take one minute to think about what has happened to women in Iraq (once considered among the most advanced Arab countries as far as women's rights are concerned), thanks to Bush and his enablers in Congress, including Democrats like Sen. Clinton. Here's just one story from WaPost, December 2006, "Women Lose Ground in the New Iraq: Once They Were Encouraged to Study and Work; Now Life Is 'Just Like Being in Jail'. and from what I've heard, things have gotten much much worse now.

    p.s.: Has anybody ever seen that damned "Bros /hos" t-shirt advertised on any liberal news blogs or pro-Obama sites on the web? I haven't. And I am angry at Cocco for putting it first in her story, and for implying that it's "widely sold" on pro-Obama internet sites.

    •  Recommend as the first post in this list to (3+ / 0-)

      mention the horrific war.  Forgotten war, forgotten dead. Human beings all, many, if not most, in the formative years of their young lives.

      all on lies.

      She voted for it and supported it for some two years or more until it was obvious to her pollsters, it was not politically feasible to do so.  Could not bring herself to admit her disasterous decision to let our children be killed on lies, so made up several kinds of flimsy excuses where she played the victim once more, ie. she was duped.  She would have done it in Iran also as her Kyl Lieberman vote shows and she would have no regrets in dropping nukes on Iran to annhilate that country also and all it's women and children, to protect Israel, who has not lost a single young person yet in all this middle east crisis with Iraq and Afganistan.

  •  Thank you for saying this (6+ / 0-)

    When I canvas for Obama and find a female voter who says she's voting for Hillary because she's a woman, I always respond that all the women in my family voted for Barack -- so it is possible for proud women to do this!

    It's sad that feminism, which was always about the idea that women should be treated as PEOPLE and not prejudged because they are women has now morphed into the idea that women should be treated differently after all, when it works to their (short term) advantage (i.e., vote for this candidate no matter how polarizing she is, no matter that she voted for the war, no matter that her campaigning has bordered on racism at times, no matter that she tells bald-faced lies (Tuzla, NAFTA, etc.), no matter that she takes more money from corporate lobbyists than any other candidate, etc., etc., etc. because she is a woman).

    Barack Obama personifies the American dream

    by Jim in Chicago on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:21:49 AM PDT

    •  P.S. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Canadian Reader, CTLiberal

      Choosing Kathleen Sebelius as his running mate -- a woman who, unlike Hillary, I can support -- would do a lot to help Barack with the demographic that is so upset about Hillary losing...

      Barack Obama personifies the American dream

      by Jim in Chicago on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:24:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's my hope--now THERE's a woman (4+ / 0-)

        that I could support wholeheatedly.

      •  What do you know about Sebellius (0+ / 0-)

        Besides her being a woman?  And why would Obama choose a woman as a running mate, that's admitting a problem isn't it?

        •  Sebelius bio (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          True North, askew, Jim in Chicago

          http://www.governor.ks.gov/...

          She's the best choice for VP, IMO.  If you believe in a 50 state strategy, then lets strengthen the ticket in all 50 states.

          AA and women are the pillars of the democratic party.  The AA vote both in terms of % voting democratic and % turnout will all time records this fall.  Lets try and do the same thing with the women's vote.  

          Kerry almost won with 51% of the women's vote.  We can beat that %.  We can also increase turnout if we give independent and republican women something to vote for. I just have a  gut feeling that there are a lot of women who will turnout and vote if the female candidate is someone other than Hillary.

          Obama/Sebelius '08

          •  A question or two for you (0+ / 0-)

            I've been following the comments about Sebelius with interest. I can't say I'm on board with the idea of her as VP: still mulling it over.

            If Obama selects Sebelius, what do you think Clinton's response will be?

            And what would be the response of Clinton's supporters? Would those who say they support Clinton for reasons of sisterly solidarity also support Sebelius for the same reason?

            Would Clinton encourage her supporters to support the ticket, which would at least include a female VP nominee?

            I ask these questions seriously. I suspect that Clinton has been deeply disappointed that her dream has slipped away from her. Would it hurt like hell to see another woman on the ticket?

            The Clinton campaign has been extraordinarily creative in coming up with spin to cover every development. I wonder if Clinton and her closest staff would find a way to discourage her supporters from supporting an Obama-Sebelius ticket. Or maybe I'm just being unduly distrustful.

            •  The other woman (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              True North

              I suspect that Hillary would be privately disappointed.  But publically she would be boxed in.  Can she really afford to undercut another accomplished woman running for national office?

              As for her supporters, there is going some big disappointment in early June when the race is finally over and the inevitable result is clear.

              I can see many of her supporters being re-energized when another woman is announced for the ticket in August.  I can also see the opposite among some supporters who say: "Why not Hillary"?

              I can also see many independents and republicans who don't like Hillary being thrilled with another woman on the ticket.

              All this will be much clearer in August.  But I do feel that adding another accomplished woman to the ticket plays into the 50 state strategy.  This moment is what many democrats have waited a lifetime for and it looks like the stars are aligned.  I don't want to focus on a VP that helps win one state.  I want to win everywhere.

  •  You know, there's also a special place in Hell (23+ / 0-)

    for women (and men) who foment frivolous wars.

    And so we have Hillary Clinton--who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq without reading the National Intelligence Estimate--now saying war against Iran may be necessary to thwart a nuclear weapons program they have already ceased, and saying she as president would be willing to go to war on behalf of the security of any Middle Eastern nation that forsakes weapons of mass destruction for our security guarantee.

    This isn't feminism. It's the intellectual lovechild of Charles Krauthammer and Dick Cheney.

    Clinton is the last gasp of a rotten, discredited, incompetent consensus that prescribes as the solution for all America's problems the shedding of more American blood.

    Opposing her is the only acceptable feminist thing to do.

  •  Way to Go! (6+ / 0-)

    Thank you for putting into words what I've felt about this campaign. I have supported Obama for years! He is an incredible, once-in-a-lifetime candidate and yes, I was torn that Hillary was in the race too. But, for me, there was no choice. I have taken heat from my female friends, but I stand my ground for the best candidate...Obama.

  •  I am a second wave feminist, and as a (23+ / 0-)

    women in a traditionally male profession, I have walked the walk. I do not support Clinton because of her support for the AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman. Part of feminism is the ability to choose the best person for the job, regardless of gender. I support Obama because he was right on the Iraq War. He is simply the better candidate.

  •  You said it (9+ / 0-)

    I'm a woman and a feminist, and I deeply resent being told that we women are "unreliable" because we vote for the person whom we think is the best. Or because we don't agree that a woman running on her husband's name to get to the presidency is something all feminists should rally around. Or because we don't believe that a nasty, divisive, unethical campaign strategy is anything that feminists should be associated with.

  •  to me, part of being a feminist is voting for (7+ / 0-)

    someone based on their credentials and their positions rather than because of their gender. For me to support someone I disagree with because she is female would mean betraying what I think feminism is all about.

    I find it really insulting to be told that I am betraying women or that I am less of a feminist because I am not supporting the female candidate. I went through the same thing with some women I knew in 2002 in Michigan, because I didn't support the woman in the democratic gubernatorial primary.

    IGTNT: Remembering our fallen soldiers

    by a girl in MI on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:27:16 AM PDT

  •  WOMAN for President...but not HRC (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    planetclaire4

    I wouldn't have one single problem to vote for woman to be a president. I think it would be great...but under one condition...that she would run campaign as a WOMAN...not as a Rocky Balboa or some other nonsenses but as a woman not to be lead by man campaign managers. It is like in Himalayas when years and years women were climbing successfully but nobody appreciate it because they were part of men expeditions and men helped them to reach the top...but then came independent women climbers and showed the world they were able to succeed on their own. It is what I am hoping to see one day in politics...women who are running by their own agenda by their own hearts and ideas...not just presenting ideas which are dictated to them by men.
    Don't be mistaken I am a man but I say we are all equal and we all deserve the same chances and the same conditions.

    •  What does "run as a woman" mean Jorda? (0+ / 0-)

      Be mousy?  Subservient?  Speak when spoken to?  I don't have a problem with strong willed, assertive women.

      It's easy to talk about equality and deserving the same chances, but women are still paid less for doing the same job as a man.  That's a shame.

  •  Hillary split "women" (9+ / 0-)

    Unfortunately many of these "feminists" are passively racist and elitists.  Somehow women of color are not "women" and their experiences are not even a consideration to them.  They see the world in the troubles that are faced by aspiring white women who want to same supremacist privileges as wealthy white men in the Capitalist society. These are troubling aspects of "feminism" and is the antithesis of what should be the struggle for equality, fairness and justice.

    In short these phony and faux "feminists" doesn't bring women together and much less want to ally with struggling men.  It is a feminism of class division.

    Also Hillary Clinton throughout her campaign and long political career has played the race card and has been the beneificary of the whites who refuse to vote for an African American candidate.  Her win in West Virginia explemifies that fact.

    "Feminists" who wants to see someone who voted for a costly and illegal War in Iraq are NOT feminists because the women in Iraq has been negatively affected by the war.

    "Feminists" would would like to see a women use racial antagonisms and division to win the presidency are no feminists because they are insensitive to issues concerning women of color.

    "Feminists" who places "careerism" as the penultimate are not feminists because they are callous to the concern and choices for all women. They confuse a large bank account with "freedom" and admonish the poor and the working class.

    This campaign has exposed the warts of "2nd wave" feminism.  It is hoped that the next generation of feminists struggle for TRUE equality, fairness and justice for everyone.

    •  there are many women of color (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snstara, political junquie

      who supported Clinton. Can you make space for them?

      John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

      by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:41:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Women of Color & Clinton (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies, Philoguy, Julia C

        there are many women of color who supported Clinton.  Can you make space for them

        Your response is a non-sequitur.  Yeah there are women of color who support Clinton but they clearly are out of touch with the many women of color who are aghast at the racism spewing from Clinton and callousness from feminists such as Gloria Steinum.  Please read the Steinum's NYT article as an example.

        However the majority of women of color are supporting Obama as shown from the vote tallies.  Clinton also was the better known candidate.  In fact Clinton as late as 12/2007 was leading Obama in the polls among African American Women.  However since she played the race card in the South Carolina primaries Obama has been winning 90% of the Black vote.

        The point is not "making space" for women of color who supports Clinton the point is that Clinton and feminist like Steinum has revealed their hypocracy when the claim to speak for "women".  They do not and have no desire to advocate a society based on racial and class justice and equality.

        •  I get it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gavrik

          The black women who supported Clinton are victims of "false consciousness," because they are out of touch and did not truly understand how vile she is.

          I agree with David Mizner, who wrote that history will show that Clinton tried to brand Obama the black candidate, while Obama tried to brand Clinton the racist candidate. The Obama campaign's memo in South Carolina willfully distorted comments by Bill and Hillary to make them seem racist.

          I am aware of the argument that white feminists are not sensitive to racial or class injustices. I don't see that Obama has made his campaign about righting those wrongs either, but you and I presumably disagree about that. From where I was sitting, Edwards was the candidate who did the most to bring class issues into the public discourse during the primaries.

          John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

          by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:48:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  You my friend (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies, Sheffield157, kemetcc

        The number of "women of color" supporting Clinton is not the crux of the debate here. It's about the very definition of feminisms. I suggest you brush up on the history of the schisms that have run through the feminist movement since the 19th century. Read up on the problems that Sojourner Truth had with the suffragettes, even as she advocated their cause ("Ar'n't I a Woman"), also the precarious position that Frederick Douglass occupied in the ranks of the same suffragettes. In the 20th century battles of second wave feminism, you need to read Mohanty's "Under Western Eyes," Audre Lorde, bell hooks, Alice Walker, and many others to understand these ideological fissures.

        "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

        by zizi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:01:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  This has historically been a problem (5+ / 0-)

      White feminists have always struggled with opening the doors to women of other races and to poor women, which gave birth in part to the womanist movement.  You are so right-- this is really bringing out the elitism that was always lurking in feminism and that, in my opinion, was one of the reasons we could never get the ERA passed.  

      The "sepia toned brad pitt" comment is pretty bad.  I am disappointed at this weird, back-handed unnecessary insertion of color in her diatribe.  For me, this is even worse than "boy."

      Sigh.  But whatever.  Let them posture.  It's over now anyway, and we all have to make nice.  I mean, we did win.  If Obama can dodge a few sepia-toned sour grapes, I think feminists for Obama should be able to do the same.

      •  "Sepia toned Bradd Pitt comment" - ? (0+ / 0-)

        Did I miss something?

        AAPI Wellesley grad in Austin for Obama! Travis County delegate, Pct. 277 - 3/29

        by lirtydies on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:16:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why Feminism Must Reform (0+ / 0-)

        I agree with you regarding what is needed now going forward for the campaign.  But their posturing has exposed why feminism has faultered.  I remember when ERA was high on the political agenda but he flaw in 2nd wave feminism has been its elitism.  Their class bias has excluded million of women from their ranks and enabled the misogynist backlash.

        For there to real equality means that feminism much become inclusive to all women.  However so long as feminist leaders put their CLASS interest first them working class women are going to have to find another way to organize their struggles.  Perhaps they are going to find that their best allies may be working class men.

        When working people become conscience of their CLASS divide and set aside racial and ethnic divisions then the people will become a powerful force.  This is why MLK was assisinated.  We must learn from that past to face the future.

  •  Thanks (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, blueness, BlueMama

    you express many of my own sentiments.

  •  ... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, blueness, crose, BlueMama

    excellent quote: "I do believe women can do anything. And that's why I haven't needed to put my faith in a woman candidate--because I have faith in women everywhere, and myself, to hold our own."

    great diary. so nice to know some clear critical thinking is going on. thanks for taking the time to write your diary.

    Billion dollar presidential campaigns are for losers.

    by john de herrera on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:32:41 AM PDT

  •  as a woman who also did not support Hillary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Canadian Reader, Vicky, snstara

    I think you are being too harsh on some of her supporters.

    I also got tired of hearing last year from some people that as a feminist, I should be supporting a viable woman candidate for president. I even cut off my monthly donation to EMILY's list, because I felt it was wrong for that group to direct money to the extremely well-financed Clinton campaign. Their resources should have gone to the women candidates who needed the Early Money that Is Like Yeast.

    But now more than ever before, as Obama seems virtually certain to be the nominee, I think his supporters need to show empathy to the women who are crushed by Hillary's defeat.

    Imagine how hurt you would feel if voters had rejected Obama (in your view the superior candidate). It's highly likely that we would be reading the same kind of articles and commentaries, this time quoting people of color who complained about blacks who had supported Hillary and let a golden opportunity to elect the first black president pass us by.

    By the way, while my opposition to Hillary had nothing to do with her gender, it's hard to deny that there has been plenty of misogyny in what passes for news analysis in the mainstream media (with Chris Matthews being the most obvious example).

    I also was struck by this passage in your diary:

    Because if that right to vote only exists to make me forever beholden to the person who possesses the same reproductive organs that I do--then what is the point of that vote in the first place?

    Not long ago a rec-listed diary here slammed a Clinton supporter of color who said,

    If all I’m capable of is looking at my arm, seeing the color of my skin, and voting accordingly, I am not worth much.

    Although the wording of that statement was regrettable (and interpreted by most on this board to be racist), I read the intended message to be similar to your own: don't tell me I have to support the candidate who looks like me--I can make up my own mind about who is the best candidate.

    John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

    by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:33:19 AM PDT

    •  Been there, done that (0+ / 0-)

      Politics can break your heart, especially when you've invested your time, money, and energy in a particular candidate. (Even more so when you didn't have the time, money, and energy to give in the first place!!)

      •  which is exactly why diaries like this (0+ / 0-)

        do not help Obama and will make it even harder for him to unite the party.

        John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

        by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:03:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm afraid we are not going to get beyond today (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, Philoguy, khereva

          during the primaries. As long as one candidate is still attacking the other, it's difficult to be generous. I don't know many who, when attacked, can turn to the army of the one attacking them and say, "Oh, aren't you great people? I like you so much. And this person attacking me is such a terrific person. Excuse me one moment while I try to defend myself."

          •  you are blind (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Angry Mouse

            Obama is winning. Now is the time for his supporters to be gracious toward the other side.

            I find the level of hostility toward Clinton supporters disturbing in itself, but even worse, it's counter-productive if you are trying to help Obama.

            John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

            by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:30:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You are blind. (4+ / 0-)

              She's still attacking.

              Her supporters keep calling us to turn the other cheek, and each time we do, she sticks the knife in the back again.

              We're not fooled any more.

              So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

              by khereva on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Exactly (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lirtydies, Philoguy, khereva

                And as for 'how would you feel if Obama were losing?', sorry, been there done that.

                1. Dean
                1. Bradley
                1. Tsongas

                Just to name the last three Dem primaries.

                Each time I sucked it up and voted for the nominee, even though I had serious problems with the nominee, because I realized that they were a far sight better than whatever the Rethugs were offering up.

                So, no, I disagree with the "Obama won, his supporters should be gracious" meme (That starts when she concedes, not sooner) and the "Obama's supporters should play nicey-nice to get the Clinton voters" meme. Come on.

                You bet your ass I'm bitter. And, yes, middle-america 'values' voters, you *have* been duped. Obama's right. And I'm bitter as hell.

                by ChurchofBruce on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  but he is winning (0+ / 0-)

                It helps him for people like you and the diarist to be gracious toward Clinton supporters.

                Obama himself understands this, which is why he clapped when John Edwards said nice things about Hillary in Michigan on Wednesday.

                John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

                by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:37:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Desmoinesdem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              askew

              (BTW, I grew up in Denver, IA, north of Waterloo and still have many relatives in Iowa - LOVE it - and DesMoines has one of my favorite living history museums.)

              I agreed with you yesterday and this morning. Earlier today I was even beginning to think it would be good to have Hillary on the ticket. THEN I learned about her new ads on just today in Oregon and Kentucky - in which she's playing the gender card BIG TIME!! I realized nothing has changed, and nothing is likely to change.

              •  Huh? (0+ / 0-)

                Maybe we saw different ads.  I saw one in Oregon, that opens with all the talking heads, with the voiceover that says something about people talking about "who is up and who is down."

                Is that the one playing the gender card, and if so, how?

                (If there's another one you're talking about, please post link.  Thanks.)

              •  I don't support her for VP (0+ / 0-)

                I think it would be better to have her in the Senate.

                Who cares if she is playing the gender card in ads?

                She is losing.

                It does not help Obama for people like you to attack the feminists who are for Hillary.

                It would help Obama for you to show more empathy for feminists who backed Hillary.

                John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

                by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:40:41 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  We won't get beyond all of this (0+ / 0-)

            until we're talking about a common enemy:  McCain.  There's nothing really Obama supporters can do here one way or another.  We all just need to work our way through it.

  •  Hillary was also the First Lady. (4+ / 0-)

    That's my problem with her. She has done a lot of good, but a big part of her brand (and the name-recognition that's gotten her so many votes) is the fact that she used to be married to a President. She talks about her experience, eight years of it being First Lady, a position no one elected her for and that has no mandate. We will have a female president soon, but I hope she'll be someone whose reputation is (entirely) her own.

  •  i had a slightly different take (0+ / 0-)

    in my own diary earlier today, but I agree with you that there seems to be a suspicious amount of highly-coordinated spin on the subject of late.

    That said, I do hear real angst among Clinton-supporting "feminists" who feel that the vitriol they're hearing makes abandoning Clinton an act of betrayal.

  •  I'm Jewish--am I supposed to support Lieberman (11+ / 0-)

    just because he is too, and was "denied" the '00 election and '04 nomination for it? Ok, not quite the same thing, as there are far more women than Jews in the US. But still, the silliness of such an argument in either case is pretty obvious to me. And what about black women? Who are they supposed to support without being "traitors" to some cause? Silliness on top of silliness that totally misses the point of what it truly means to be empowered and liberated.

    Also, since I'm a man, aren't I supposed to like Bush? Yeah, exactly. No there, there.

    "I will vote for the Democratic candidate for president--period." --Me

    by kovie on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:38 AM PDT

  •  I'm a 59-year-old woman who has fought the battle (20+ / 0-)

    ... and I am really pissed at these women who trivialize MY victories because they want to complain that women can't measure up.

    DON'T YOU DARE!

    You know how we women get the respect we deserve? We beat the others at their own game. We demand equality (and knowing we won't get it, we kick their asses and force them to respect us) but we don't ask for special rules.

    This isn't golf, we don't need a "ladies' tee," and this BS of "it's her time" is f*****g demeaning to women!

    And furthermore, Hillary had my support, and she  lost it with her "politics as usual" pandering. At the same time, Obama's speech on race really demonstrated to me his character and intelligence, and he won me over.

    So I think it is his time because he's earned it. She doesn't get a do-over because she's a girl.

    And for my creds, I am 59, white, and raised in the Deep South and Appalachia. I've broken trail all my life in business and professional areas where I was the "first female" to do it. And frankly, I have little sympathy for someone who wants special rules, especially when 90% of her "experience" was as the wife of someone who was doing something and brought her along. Does Laura Bush get to claim her "experience" and does she "deserve" a political win too?

    Personal aside, aka shameless pimping: I am now breaking trail as the Grandma Moses of game programmers. Send your moms and grandmothers over to my Games4TV and I'll take good care of them and keep them off the streets.

    America will never again be the land of the free... Until she again becomes the home of the brave.

    by Ducktape on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:34:59 AM PDT

  •  White feminists for HRC, not feminists (7+ / 0-)

    I would just point out that most of the feminists still supporting HRC and criticizing feminists and women who support Obama are predominantly white feminists.  

    Most black women are supporting Obama, even though half of them started off supporting HRC until she and Hil began their race-baiting attacks.  

    So, not only do these feminists for HRC not speak for all feminists, they seem to only reflect the concerns of certain white feminists.  

  •   Sen Obama - er - President Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, blueness, orangeuglad

    will be good for everyone -- men AND women AND our children.

    i truly believe he will steer this nation in a better direction.  we all have to do our share in achieving this. (let's make sure we hold the M$M news does it share, too!)

    yes WE can!

  •  As a woman I would say Obama represents my (6+ / 0-)

    values more than the values that Hillary supports.

    The values that Hillary has demonstrated during this campaign are.

    1.  Me first.
    1.  Lying and embellishing are OK for a female Presidential candidate.
    1.  Using women's groups whose purpose is to get women out to vote, but instead trick them into thinking they aren't registered to vote to repress African Americans from voting.  
    1.  More trickery from another feminist group, Emily's List, spend millions to misrepresent Obama's Pro-Choice voting record.
    1.  Staging antics like getting men to yell "Iron my Shirts"  at a New Hampshire Hillary rally to anger rally the feminist troops on Hillary's side and present a staged sexism act for Hillary's benefit.
    1.  Act sanctimonial by saying, "He wouldn't of been my Pastor", to score cheap political points.
    1.  When asked directly if, Obama was a Muslim, answer in a clever way that leaves open the possibility he is one. "He isn't a Muslim, as far as I know."
    1.  Use guilt by association smears to score cheap political points in debates such as bringing up Obama's association with Ayers.
    1.  Her Academy award nomination for her, "Shame on you Barack Obama" Act.
    1. Having her campaign run by men that are so slimy they make my want to gag, ie. Mark Penn and Terry Macallauf.
  •  Regarding your Update: Identity Politics (12+ / 0-)

    Hillary supporters seem to forget that not all feminists are female

    They not only forget that, but they forget that not all feminists are White females.  

    If their argument has any validity to it--that the only way to improve their social status is by electing someone like themselves -- then is is clear that they are ONLY talking to white women when they ask for votes or support for HIllary.  

    Most black women, given the choice between a white female and a black male, would choose the black male.   Not because he is male, but because he is black.  And those black women would realize that they could get a "social bounce" not only for themselves with their skin color, but also for their sons and fathers and brothers.   Black women would equate the improvement in the status of black people with improvements throughout the entire black community.  Maybe their husbands would get better jobs.  Maybe fewer black males would end up victims of violence.   Maybe more black men would remain free from criminal prosecution and police harassment.   Hispanic women would also see the pattern.  For while there is some racial tension between Hispanics and Blacks-- where White Racists are concerned, those two groups are "the other" and are treated in the same disrespectful and damaging way.  

    If identity politics IS the issue that feminists preach, then they can only expect and accept as natural, the abandonment by every ethnic group except white women of Hillary's campaign.   It simply follows their own argument to its natural conclusion.  

    And that is what the politics of division does.  It leads to smaller and smaller groups trying to hold on to power and make a difference.  

  •  Yep. (5+ / 0-)

    I'm a mother, a southerner, a feminist, an attorney, and lots more to boot -- and I'm a proud Barack Obama supporter.

    Great diary. You are not alone. :)

  •  Great Diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    betson08, empathy, BlueMama

    I would add on the other side that I have African-American friends who support Hillary.  That doesn't mean they are against their race.  As with gender, it is a stupid argument.

    People are choosing their candidate based on who they think is best.  Isn't that what it is supposed to be about?

    Barack Obama for President '08

    by v2aggie2 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:40:39 AM PDT

  •  Back in the day (5+ / 0-)

    when I fought my way into law school, where women weren't supposed to go, I was told I'd have to "butch up" to compete.  My response was that I didn't have to become a man to compete with men professionally.  I was distressed at the masculine characteristics attributed to a woman in this primary.  We don't have to pretend to be a pseudo male to be on the playing field, that denies who we are.  This is not the model for feminism that I taught my daugter.  Feminism is about equality, embracing ourselves as women and still having the equal opportunities.  It's not about putting either gender over the other, but rather true equality.

    Barack Obama is my President.

    by RoCali on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:41:45 AM PDT

  •  I've said it before and I'll say it again: (5+ / 0-)

    If you don't vote for someone on the basis of their sex you are a sexist.

    If you vote for someone on the basis of their sex you are a sexist.

    Definition of discrimination: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

    I'm a middle-aged female and my votes are strictly based on the candidate's individual merits, NOT their sexual parts.

    IMHO, these women pushing this nonsense should be ashamed of themselves. They do themselves, their candidate and feminism no justice by playing the victim of sexism card.

    It's especially ironic since it has been done in the service of a candidate who got where she did mainly because of who she married.

    This is a candidate who lost because she hired and listened to the bad advice of a bunch of incompetents, many of whom her husband brought aboard. The disconnect with that truth is astounding.

    "Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please." Mark Twain

    by mentaldebris on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:27 AM PDT

  •  "free to be, you and me" (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, empathy, FishBiscuit, dawnt

    LOVED IT!   I had that record, and a companion book, if I remember correctly.

    When I was just a tiny kid, my favorite story was the one from the Free to Be You and Me record with Marlo Thomas--remember that, anyone?--the one about Atalanta, the beautiful princess who refused to marry a prince because she was smarter and faster than any of them.

    Loved that story, too.  Thanks for the great memory!

    -6.63/-6.31 Please visit the Grieving Room on Monday nights to discuss issues of mourning and loss.

    by Dem in the heart of Texas on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for writing this diary! (7+ / 0-)

    I am 62yrs old and have always been for Obama.  I really get mad when I hear what is being said.  I have been married for 40 years and raised 2 boys.  I feel they are feminists too.  They have married very independent women.  I feel very frustrated when I hear how we should be voting for Hillary.  That is not choice.

  •  Thank you so much for posting this diary (6+ / 0-)

    I had this urge to cheer out loud while I was reading the last few paragraphs. I agree whole heartedly with you. Your emotion leaps off of the page in this diary, and it looks like it touched the hearts of many here.

    And congratulations on your first rec-list diary, too!

    Change you can Xerox. Print it. Read it. Copy it. Pass it on. Obama '08

    by dawnt on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:44:59 AM PDT

  •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    empathy, BlueMama

    Great diary.  One thing that really wore me out with Hilary was her playing the victim.  I guess I feel that if she was such a fighter and all that you ignore it and move on.  

  •  I LOVE smart feminists (7+ / 0-)

    The ones who get what feminism is all about: not that women are superior in some way, but that men and women are EQUALS and deserve equal consideration. To look at two candidates with equal qualifications and decide to support the woman solely by virtue of her gender...now THAT'S sexism. And your husband is right; I'm a man, and I consider myself a feminist, in the sense that I treat all women as worthy of equal consideration. My girlfriend appreciates that about me, and I'm sure you appreciate that about your husband. But as far as I'm concerned, it's part and parcel with being an enlightened, intelligent member of society. The sexists on both sides of the gender gap who are trying to drag us back into the gender wars that so many women (and men) fought to escape are the real danger, and they deserve to be called what they are: sexist.

  •  What a great diary! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vesticular, orangeuglad

    Thanks so much for sharing this with us, it truly touched me. My mom (76 years old) belonged to NOW and is a "feminist" and she is also an Obama supporter. Like you, she feels that Obama is the best candidate, and the one who comes closest to sharing her values. Just as we should all be color blind, we should also all be gender blind.

  •  I dont owe anyone, did it myself (7+ / 0-)

    To me feminism = empowerment

    Feminism dies in the hands of those who would shame you into their worldview and their actions.

    I owe no one, not men, not women, not feminist women - no one for my successes.... did it myself

    No one held my hand when I studied for all my AP classes in high school.... did it myself

    No one held my hand or gave me any favors (especially financial) when I went to college (I have no memory of any old feminists helping me out with any part of that) .. did it myself

    No one held my hand or helped me out when I was in grad school .... did it myself

    No one helped me when I did my three postdocs, no old feminists there .... did it myself

    When I decided to have children .. you can be certain there were no old feminists helping out then .. did that with my partner and then with my growing family

    No old feminists have stepped forward to help me as this decision to have children has taken me away from the career I trained for.  We are on our own.

    All of this .. did it without any old feminists..

    I am a feminist and I would NEVER DARE to put any sort of guilt trip on my daughters or other women in the name of feminism..

    Shame on those who do.

    Obama is the choice for those of us who have our eyes actually open and know that this is the right decision.

    I choose to be reality based because I LIVE in reality, not dim pseudo-idealisms that I would impose on others.

    Visit our organic garden blog! Humble Garden!

    by nika7k on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:49:25 AM PDT

    •  congratulations on your hard work (0+ / 0-)

      but I think you are wrong to say that your successes had nothing to do with the work of the older generation of feminists.

      To cite just one example, it wasn't that long ago that some high schools discouraged girls from taking calculus or other challenging coursework.

      John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

      by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:43:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  no, I will not feel obligated (0+ / 0-)

        I do not need nor look for congratulations or validation.

        Here in the US?  You are looking at a discouraging educational environment no matter what gender you are looking at.  

        So much still needs to be done, no laurels for any aged feminist or educator.

        In science .. we women hit the glass ceiling pretty soon after grad school .. and its not going away any time soon.  

        I do not see that my way has been made easy.  

        It may be a matter of incrementalism .. but the increment has not advanced enough to be truly significant if large numbers of women can not compete effectively in their most productive years.

        This is not the place to go into this.  

        Sure, we do not live in a society like an islamic one where women are held back.

        Its not enough to be happy with just that.

        Visit our organic garden blog! Humble Garden!

        by nika7k on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:02:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  of course the glass ceiling isn't going away (0+ / 0-)

          but how can you deny that earlier generations of feminists deserve some credit for incremental progress? Do you think you or any other qualified, hard-working woman would have gotten into grad school or gotten your post-docs without them?

          75 years ago you could have worked just as hard but not gotten nearly as far.

          John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

          by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:05:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  hard to know (0+ / 0-)

            How far is it really, to do what I have done and then come up utterly short because I dared to have a family.

            I do not "owe" my mother or father for giving birth to me.

            My children owe me nothing.

            I feel that we each must not be burdened by that construction.. its certainly not productive and not going to get my girls any further in their struggles.

            Visit our organic garden blog! Humble Garden!

            by nika7k on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:10:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Your post reminds me of Sojourner Truth (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lirtydies, El in New York
      •  wow, thank you! (0+ / 0-)

        Thank you for sharing that link.

        I think I would have stood and cried listening to her.

        Its beautiful.

        "If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them."

        Upside down indeed..

        I know I am not as strong as she was .. having her babies sold into slavery ..

        Thank you for sharing.  What fantastic context.

        Visit our organic garden blog! Humble Garden!

        by nika7k on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:07:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No women helped me with college either (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lirtydies, nika7k

          I started at 30, single mother with three little girls, working full-time, but still on welfare.

          •  you definitely did it on your own (0+ / 0-)

            I cant imagine how hard that was.  I find I can not even really work at home .. the kids are just too distracting to get much done!

            I didnt start my babies until aged 30, after grad school.  I could not have gotten through grad school with a family depending on me, that would have broken this camel's back.

            Do not know how you did it!

            Visit our organic garden blog! Humble Garden!

            by nika7k on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:25:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Loved it (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, blueness, orangeuglad

    I actually think that the way the campaign has gone so far is proof that women have come a very long way- because the media narrative is much more about Obama's race than Clinton's gender.  We don't see headlines about "Can Clinton win the Male vote?" but we sure see plenty of headlines about Obama and White people.  I wouldn't say that Hillary's gender has been a non-issue, but very little of the public discourse on her campaign has been about her being a woman, which is to me some proof that society is not shocked, outraged, or frightened by it.  

    But of much more importance is this: to me, it is enormously offensive and anti-progressive to imply that gender or racial loyalty should dictate a voter's choice regardless.  You can choose your creeds and ideologies by reason, intuition, experience, and learning.  You cannot choose your race and your gender.  To imply that a woman must vote for Hillary because she is a woman is the opposite of freedom.  To imply that an African-American must vote for Obama because he is African-American is the same thing.  In fact, to imply that a Black person must vote DEMOCRAT because they are Black is offensive.  Obviously, this is a site for Democratic partisans and liberals, and so, since I'm here, I PRIVATELY believe that any person- Black or otherwise, Female or otherwise- who votes GOP is making a mistake, but this idea of racial or gender loyalty is completely antithetical to democracy, progressivism, or any type of freedom.  What we should be striving for is a world where all Americans have legitimate choices and should not be pressured into solidarity with a group they never got to choose to belong to.  I say that not to denigrate those groups, of course, but merely to point out that it seems to me that a person's conscience and intellectual reasoning should be the impetus behind their vote.  Great diary!

    "The quality of mercy is not strained. It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven upon the place beneath."- Shakespeare, "Merchant of Venice"

    by tubalefty on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM PDT

  •  A feminist since I was 15... (5+ / 0-)

    ...and that means for over 35 years, I REFUSE to vote for a woman merely because of her gender.

     That would be a betrayal of everything I've worked for and believed in.

     The whole freaking POINT of feminism, ultimately, was to make gender a non-issue, after all.

  •  Thank you for this diary .... it's wonderful (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    empathy, blueness, LeanneB

    as a 60 yr old, single, Catholic, forced to retire too early and  therefore in a low income bracket, and white woman I want to thank you for this diary from the bottom of my heart.

    I am a feminist and I have fought hard for equality for all people for many years.  But I never considered voting for Hillary ... I want a woman to be President yes! of course I do! but I don't want her to be co-president

    Low paid women, women on welfare, women immigrants suffered greatly under Clinton's policies and Hillary helped get those policies implemented ..

    as this campaign ends, I have come to have no respect for Hillary ...she hasn't run as a feminist but a some gal out to prove she is as macho as any man ... she has caricatured herself more than any cartoonist or nutcracker designer could do

    Obama is going to help enable all people to reach their potential ...and some day, we will see a woman elected to the White House, not because she could out-drink the coal miners, but because she presents a true feminist view and shows the greatness that view will bring to the country!

    thanks again  for your diary

  •  Even though (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snstara, orangeuglad

    Even though the playing field is still not level, and sexism still exists both overt and covert, I reserve the right to select the candidate of any gender who I feel has the best chance to be elected and whose articulated positions and demonstrated acts best approximate my hopes for this country.

    I resent anyone telling me how I should vote. Tell me why you support the candidate, fine, but don't try to get my vote by labeling me or my thinking.

    There definitely is sexism in how HRC is being covered and treated, just as there is racism in how Obama is being covered and treated. That's not going to determine my vote.

    Please don't deny that sexism still exists. It does, and it is serious. Many of us run into it every day.  However, I agree with the poster that sexism is not the most significant reason why Hillary is losing this race.

  •  I will not waste what the suffragettes worked for (5+ / 0-)

    I am 45 and female and I believe that I do not honor the work and sacrifice of the suffragettes if I blindly vote for ANY candidate - whether or not that candidate is a woman.

    I was raised in a feminist household, and was a charter subscriber when MS. magazine relaunched. I have often been in the face (overtly and subtley) of men who want to control and keep women down.

    My 78 year old mother, is also a feminist,  and broke down glass ceilings herself. She is listed in the 1963 issue of "Who's Who of American Women". She's an Obama supporter.

    Last week when I listed some of the thoughtful reason I am not a Clinton supporter - a Clinton supporter called my reasons "tripe"

    Fortunately older feminist (like my Mom) have heard the name calling and the vitriol all their lives (generally from men although I don't think my mother has many lind words for Phyllis Schlafly) so they can whether what other feminists think and feel and say about them.

    I'm tired of them demanding that my vagina means that I will blindly follow the heard and reject my own reasoning, my own thoughts, etc.

    I has NOTHING to do with self hatred.  It has to do with Hillary and the Clintons, her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, the DLC, and many, many other issues.

    A female president is inevitable, but not her.

    However unlike the Clinton supporter who called my reasons "tripe" I will vote for HIllary in the general if she is the nominee ... that Hillary supporter will not do the same for Obama.

    If u will not vote for the Dem. nominee, no matter who that is, go apologize 2 the youth of this nation. U've helped put in "100 years of war no Choice McCain."

    by Clytemnestra on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:54:41 AM PDT

  •  THANK YOU !! n/t (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, blueness, orangeuglad

    "Write your life in ink..."

    by Caringthinkingperson on Sat May 17, 2008 at 11:56:22 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for this diary! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blueness, ocdemgal49, orangeuglad

    for me, the fact that hillary is a woman has never been an issue.  the fact that she's a clinton - now that's a problem!

    white, hard-working, happy, hopeful, 44-year-old single mom for BARACK in 'o8!!!

  •  Outstanding diary... and I have a vocab question. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    empathy, FishBiscuit, From a distance

    I'm 39.  My husband, 38, who would NEVER objectify ANYBODY or ANYTHING in ANY WAY was employed by a woman (his boss) at an environmental education agency.  This particular boss was disagreeable and frustrated with her situation in life and often took it out on the people around her - both male and female.  Toward the end of his time at that agency his boss took to standing next to his desk and seethed aloud, "...Men!..."

    It goes both ways, obviously.  Have we grown out of the term "feminism"?  Do we require a new term that embraces all of the points of the diarist and acknowleges that both boys and girls, men and women should be honored and respected for who they are and their accomplishments?  Do we re-embrace "feminism" like we re-embrace "liberalism"?

    "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

    by Vote On Paper on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM PDT

    •  Well, humanism (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FishBiscuit, Vote On Paper

      Humanism used to be that term you are looking for, but feminism arose because women simply were not able to make themselves believe that humanism fully included them.

      •  Words (0+ / 0-)

        I'll say it again, isn't it refreshing that during this election cycle we are learning new vocabulary words or discovering the nuances presented within the covers of a thesaurus instead of the poor grammar and lazy pronunciation of the current administration?

        From wiki:

        Humanism features an optimistic attitude about the capacity of people, but it does not involve believing that human nature is purely good or that each and every person is capable of living up to the Humanist ideals of rationality and morality. If anything, there is the recognition that living up to one's potential is hard work and requires the help of others. The ultimate goal is human flourishing; making life better for all humans, and as the most conscious species, also promoting concern for the welfare of other sentient beings. The focus is on doing good and living well in the here and now, and leaving the world better for those who come after.

        "Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." - Elie Wiesel

        by Vote On Paper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:14:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I'm 63. a woman and wholeheartedly support Barack (5+ / 0-)

    because he speaks for me.
    Sadly Hillary does not.
    I would have liked it if she spoke for me but her values are not mine.
    I want intelligent fair minded, scientifically based leadership instead of political pandering and cronyism.

    This ranting by so called feminists is appalling.

    And I had to fight my way through a good old boy dominated regional brokerage firm to work in an area previously exclusively male...it wasn't easy.

    But that doesn't mean I will use gender as the qualification that dictates who would serve us best as president.

    I honestly feel that Barack makes evaluations based on merit while Hillary does so based on political/financial usefulness.

  •  I'm proud of all feminists who (5+ / 0-)

    have the good sense to realize that Obama is the superior candidate in 2008.  He has run a fantastic, thoughtful, smart campaign.  

    Thanks for this wonderful diary.  I'm a middle-aged woman and I'm proud to join you in supporting Obama.  The failed Clinton campaign wants to turn feminism on its head.  

  •  It's sort of the "post-feminism" issue... (15+ / 0-)

    My girlfriend, as I have whined incessantly here on DKos, is a Clinton supporter, and I support Obama even though I'm a lesbian and a feminist. I'm also 49 years old and she's 39, so it's not really an age thing.

    As a lesbian, I get annoyed at younger gay people for rushing to a post-gay world even though we still haven't achieved even legal, titular equality yet.

    For some reason I don't get equally annoyed at young women who have embraced a sort of post-feminist world, in which, as the diarist does, you embrace feminism as being about the equality, especially equal opportunity, of the sexes, rather than the liberation of women, as we learned back in the 70s.

    So even though on the issue of feminism I'm more like younger women and the diarist, because on the issue of LGBT rights I'm more like the old-time feminists, I feel I have an understanding of where they are coming from both politically and personally.

    Back in the day, we understood feminism not to just be the leveling of the playing field in our existing world, but the idea of replacing patriarchal institutions and social constructs with less male-centric ones. It was not enough to say "equal pay for equal work"; what was needed was a re-evaluation of work itself. Why is child-rearing such a low status job? Teaching children? Nursing?

    So it wasn't enough to fight for paying male and female teachers the same. We needed to look at why traditionally female-associated jobs are lower paying even when men do them.

    Now, I actually still believe everything I've said there, but I've come to understand it in a different way. As I got older, I realized that change simply doesn't happen in the linear, orderly progression I believed it did. It happens in leaps and jumps, and in a patchwork pattern.

    And part of the leap-frog way that change happens is that the younger generation often moves past the specific problems of today without necessarily solving them. One minute you're getting hit in the head with a baseball bat for "acting gay" at school; the next minute a lesbian couple is the high school's "Couple of the Year." And meanwhile, halfway across the country, or even just down the road, a kid is beaten up or killed for "acting gay." It's a patchwork.

    It can give an older, more traditional progressive whiplash. But it's how it is.

    That's why today, 70 percent of those serving in the armed forces oppose the ban on the open service of lesbian and gay people. But fifteen years ago, that was absolutely not the case. That's why we'll almost certainly see the end of that ban today, but even though politically it has always been indefensible, it was the social change that effected the legal change in this case. (Sometimes legal change effects social change; I'm not trying to say this is the only way change happens.)

    So when I look at some of the feminists who are so adamant that Clinton failed due to sexism instead of her own poor candidacy or Obama's superior candidacy, and their insistence that sexism is not about "gender discrimination" but about discrimination against WOMEN, I swear, even though I don't share that view, I completely understand it.

    I happen to believe that homophobia hurts everyone in America, but it hurts LGBT people much, much more.

    I happen to believe that sexism and racism hurt men and white people, but it hurts women and black people much more.

    And it's not just about "who gets hurt more," but a qualitative difference as well. Because we live in a world that has so far been mostly constructed for the benefit of a dominant class of straight white men, and even when we succeed in that world, we are still using their frames and their standards.

    What's changed for me is that I see that it's not like one day we'll replace that structure, but that it, like us, will evolve over time, and one day those who built and maintained the old structure will look around and go, huh? What happened? And where's our stuff?

    And it's not like one day we'll wake up and thousands of years of patriarchy will have officially ended and the matriarchal era will have begun and we can have a few thousand years of female dominance to create balance and then start over as equals.

    It's that the paradigms of inequality themselves will change, or, better yet, disappear.

    And you know, while it makes sense that will be very uncomfortable for those who profited from and built the old paradigms, it's also true that it's uncomfortable for those who fought them.

    We lose a bit of our identity. We feel that real problems, problems we fought to solve for years or decades, are being overlooked or buried. We feel that younger people or less radical people or people who just don't "get it" are rushing past us, heading for a bright new tomorrow that is built on a false platform, because hello! There is still sexism, racism, homophobia, poverty, oppression.... get back here! Clean up this mess!

    But I'm now seeing that's not the only way messes get cleaned up.

    So maybe it's the ten years I've lived longer than my girlfriend, or my own personal political journey during my life, that's made me see both sides of this more clearly than she, and many other feminists, can. I don't know.

    But I truly do sympathize with both sides of this one -- not with Clinton herself, but with the broken hearts of some of her supporters.

    •  Brilliant! Thanks (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      Be the change you want to see in the world.

      by empathy on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:23:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Philoguy, Fixed Point Theorem

      is one of the best comments I've ever read on this site. I'd like to see you transform it into a diary.

      This insight is pure gold:

      As I got older, I realized that change simply doesn't happen in the linear, orderly progression I believed it did. It happens in leaps and jumps, and in a patchwork pattern.

      And part of the leap-frog way that change happens is that the younger generation often moves past the specific problems of today without necessarily solving them. One minute you're getting hit in the head with a baseball bat for "acting gay" at school; the next minute a lesbian couple is the high school's "Couple of the Year." And meanwhile, halfway across the country, or even just down the road, a kid is beaten up or killed for "acting gay." It's a patchwork.

      Best of luck to you and your girlfriend. Many, many thanks.

      (And kudos to the diarist. Very well done. I wasn't going to comment, as I'm male, and I'm enjoying--and learning--very much reading a diary in which the voices are almost exclusively female. But ChristieKeith here just made me jump in.; )  )

    •  Wow...this should be a diary in its own right (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueness

      thanks for sharing your insight--you've clearly done some serious mental wrestling with issues of identity, gender, and politics--and I, too sympathize with the other side as well. That's why it's taken me as long as it has to speak out on this--I felt deep sympathy even for Erica Jong and the most angry and condescending writers on this issue. I haven't lived it, so I have to imagine--but for those of you that have, I appreciate so much the wisdom that you've obviously acquired along the way, and the grace to recognize that change may not always come in the way we want it to--but that change is still a good thing (Well, mostly.)  I hope I'm like all of you when I grow up! :)

    •  wow - thank you for this enlightening post (0+ / 0-)
  •  "Hold on one second, sweetie" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gavrik

    How did I live without him?

    by Pumpkinlove on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:03:58 PM PDT

  •  Very Well stated (4+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure where I fit in the Obama vs Clinton demographics--I'm just barely under 50 so I suppose I fit her supporters there. But then again I have a master's degree, and boy, do I love my lattes. Incidentally, all that pigeon-holing annoys me. But I always have and always will think of myself as a feminist. And I work in a profession that is overwhelmingly female.

    I've spent the past 10 years defending the Clintons, and don't regret it, but to me they're the past, Obama's the future. As one commentator put it when describing Obama's appeal to many who would have otherwise enthusiastically supported Clinton, "I'm sorry mom, but I love him". I have two older sisters who are Clinton supporters, and when I voted for Obama in our primary here in Wisconsin I told them that in a lot of ways my vote for him was emotional. Maybe that's not the way to decide who to vote for....I guess I wouldn't recommend it to most people, since I dislike it when other people do it. I haven't been brave enough to ask my sisters what they think now that Obama's steadily moving towards the nomination.

    We have another sister, also older than me, who's a republican. The less said about her, the better!

  •  I might be (4+ / 0-)

    thrown to some wolves for what I am about to say; so be it.

    When Bill was still President and the truth came out, Hillary did not leave the man. She stood by him like a dutiful little wife, like Vittner's wife, like Spitzer's wife, like countless other cuckholded wives of politicians. Is that a feminist thing to do? Powerful women all through time have had the guts to throw their cheating bums out. Why didn't she? I don't believe that it was the first time Bill had been caught with a cigar in his mouth.

    No, she didn't leave him, and when it came time to run for the Senate, Hillary actually used her husband's sexual exploits to bolster her own career. She would not have won if she had not been seen as a victim of Bill's indiscretions. She asked for and received the sympathy vote from women who were angry with Bill.

    Hillary is not a feminist. She is a politician. You can be both but you'd better come to it on more strength than Hillary has done.

    "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Graham Chapman

    by crose on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:08:44 PM PDT

  •  Hillary has set cause backwards for women (3+ / 0-)

    and the sooner she gets out of nomination race, the better.

  •  Her loss is due to a number of things.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...but sexism is only a component. Ridiculous to say that it isn't present. Before she made her voice known, Americans perceived her as the biggest raging battleaxe on Earth. After you saw her talk, millions of us realized it wasn't true. But your deriding Steinhem and all the others is horrible really. These people are icons....do we scorn them now? You can be a feminist because THEY were.

    Look, gay people voted for Harvey Milke because he was great and because he was gay; blacks vote for Barack Obama because he is great and because he is black; it is entirely okay for women to vote for Hillary Clinton because she is great and because she is a woman. You are not compelled to do so, but you are able to have this choice for the first time in MY LIFETIME or ANYONE'S LIFETIME because of Gloria Steinhem and others. So button it.

    Please don't tell me you feel sorry for Ben. Ben is a well cared for dalmatian and has not been harmed by my political views.

    by Bensdad on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:16:14 PM PDT

  •  I distrust dislike each ALMOST equally, except (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pumpkinlove, VA gentlewoman, soms

    hillary has a LOT longer record of selling me out than obama has.

    I liked Edwards' latest flavor of message, BUT

    the guy had a LOT of shitty votes when he was 1 of 100 U.S. Senators.

    I'm sick of political discussion happening at 15 degrees off of far far right cuz we're all tooo fucking stupid to do more than act like goldfish in the bowl, swimming in circles, swallowing our little flakes of 'conventional wisdom' that define 'moderate' and 'swing' and 'independent' and 'bipartisan' as we grumble and ultimately act in obediance to Rove, Ailes and Atewater.

    I HOPE barack is different - my last vote for HOPE was a fucking waste.

    I don't need any fucking hope, I need RESULTS.

    rmm

    pco 36-1392
    seattle, wa

    Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He thinks too much: such men are dangerous

    by seabos84 on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:20:41 PM PDT

  •  This 63-year old white feminist (4+ / 0-)

    totally agrees with you -- not all of us "older" women are blind to Hillary's weaknesses and flaws.  Obama was not my first choice (neither was Hillary).  When Clark endorsed Hillary I gave her a good look, and didn't like what I saw (dishonesty, pandering, lack of authenticity).  Obama took a while to grow on me, but the more I see and hear the more I like.  

    I remember voting for Mondale ONLY because Geraldine Ferrarro was on the ticket (I cried in joy to see a woman on the ticket). (OK I wouldn't vote for Ferraro today).  I am not choosing Obama because of his race or his gender -- I choose him because of all the candidates (none of whom is perfect), he offers at least the hope of authenticity, honesty, and true leadership.  Hillary may be in the forefront, because of her accomplishments, but her leadership skills suck.  As do her management  skills, which are nonexistent.  The only thing Hillary ever led on was health care, and she led BADLY, with the result that universal health care became the third rail of the Democratic party for three decades.  She lost me -- a white woman feminist professional smack in her "senior" demographic not because I want a man to lead us, but because she didn't inspire me to follow her down the rabbit hole of political and personal ambition.

    Good diary.  Thanks.

    •  It was stunning when Ferrarro was nominated (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Queen Alice

      I remember reading something that captured the moment when a woman said something to the effect that the "molecules had been reconfigured in relation to the world" by the experience of seeing a woman on the ticket.

      Others will have that experience for the first time when Obama is the nominee, and it's great to be a part of it. It's that much sweeter when we're strong enough to stand together and make progress for all.

      **Update: I found the article in Time Magazine from 7/23/84!!

      "For some women, the sense of personal pride brought on by Ferraro's nomination seems almost metaphysical. "It somehow changes the context of my relationship to the outside world and the way I feel about myself," explains Anne Just, who leads Vermont's delegation in San Francisco this week. "It is as though the molecules had been rearranged." Said Koryne Horbal, a founder of the Democratic Party Women's Caucus: "When I walked down the street today, I felt different, I felt validated."

      http://www.time.com/...

      •  This article brought back painful memories (0+ / 0-)

        of what the world was like for women then. We have come a LONG way.

        The questions raised by the diarist are do we dwell on the past, or do we move forward; do we begrudge the fact that young women do not have it as hard as we did, or do we look to pass the torch to those who are best suited to lead now . . . The world has changed and is changing, and for the better.

  •  I have read a lot of the commentary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bensdad

    to which you refer and must have missed the bit about how feminists insist that women vote for Clinton.  I do not think that that's what they're angry about.  I think they are angry about the treatment that Hillary has received by the media as well as Obama-leaning blogs.  And especially the their impression that few democrats have spoken out about that.  Any time that anyone says anything remotely considered racist, there seems to be an uproar, yet not so much when someone says something sexist.  I think we owe it to each other to speak out about sexism and racism, without being overly sensitive to or falsley accusing anyone of either.

    I voted for Obama in the primary but now support Clinton.  I think her campaign has improved greatly in the past couple months and I admire her strength and perserverance.  I like that my daughters have been able to witness it.  They are paying attention and learning.  I do not think that women owe their vote to Clinton. But we (male and female) owe it to each other to be civil and respectful.  Sadly, that is not always the case.

    Links to a couple of videos that may be of interest are here and here.  What do you think?

    Rick Noriega for Texas U.S. Senator!

    by sander60tx on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:22:31 PM PDT

    •  It's about philosophy of life (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FishBiscuit

      for me. Not sexism. Not racism.

      And I personally abhor Hillary's tactics. I would tear into one of my adult daughters if they pulled the crap Hillary has. Ethics matters to me.

    •  "must have missed the bit" (0+ / 0-)

      Visit the NARAL site and have a look at the comments in the wake of their endorsement of Obama.

      So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

      by khereva on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:59:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You're still using the victim meme (0+ / 0-)

      MSM as enemy of the Clintons? I don't think so. You don't have strong positions of support if you base your votes on what people say on a blog. Her campaign has spiraled into catastrophe since February but since you say it has improved when she has engaged in such outlandish racist behavior I have to question your critical thinking skills and your level of tolerance for racism. As well as accountability.

  •  As a feminist, I worry that young women (7+ / 0-)

    don't understand how fragile Roe v. Wade is. I'm 62, a white woman, who remembers the minute we were able to get birth control pills. I'm also an adoptee and understand all too well the horror of making women give up a baby they are bonded with, just because they are unmarried. That is true sexism, that is the crap we fought. So my bottom line is the courts. I will not vote for a candidate that will put in judges that weaken women's right to make their own choices regarding their bodies.

    So when I think about women who understand this suggest they will not vote for Obama, which means they are willing to let McCain weaken women's rights, I have to ask how these women can call themselves feminists! I mean think about it! Women's rights on the one hand vs showing anger that HRC isn't our nominee on the other hand. It is kind of like cutting off  your nose to spite your face.

    We've had our disagreement on who was the better candidate, but now it is time to come together and get a Democrate in the white house. I can't believe we won't do that as women and men.

    •  I understand ... (0+ / 0-)

      No one I know would vote for McCain, however, I live in Fla and many are furious that our primary vote will not count.  People don't realize that this will depress the vote so badly here that it is probably already impossible for Fla to go blue this fall.  That is a bitter pill to swallow- and anger is directed at Obama.  How could any Dem nominee so casually discard Fla's electoral votes?  Fla Legislature is overwhelmingly dominated by Repubs, who successfully pulled off the primary debacle.  
      Without Fla in the Dem column we may not have a chance to save Roe v. Wade.  The fault will not be disheartened HRC supporters who stay home in states that "don't matter".  I hope that every feminist who doesn't mind being called "sweetie" by Obama votes for him in Nov. - then maybe we'll have a chance.  

      •  How is Florida Obama's fault? (0+ / 0-)

        This is utter nonsense. This was a decision by the Florida legislature and Democrats are on tape celebrating the decision to move the election.

        '1984': "Big Brother is watching you". 2008: You're going to end up on YouTube.

        by jhecht on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:32:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The few, stupid democrats on that tape (0+ / 0-)

          will pay the price at the polls.(I hope) Unfortunately, we all may pay a price.  Obama ran a national ad that aired in Fla just before the primary- he was the only one who did.  There was record turnout, the vote was fair.  Obama should agree to seat the delegates- it would at least diffuse the charge that he is discounting Fla.  I don't know how he will correct that perception in Mich where Obama supporters actually blocked the revote, but seating the Fla delegates would help here.  I say help, but Fla is one state where Hillary is definitely more electable than Obama.  Obama may win So. Fla, but lose central and northern.  Hillary would win So & central and be close in north Fla.  

          •  Obama will win Florida (0+ / 0-)

            The Republicans are damaged goods. They're losing in districts that have been Republican strongholds for decades. Obama could win 40-45 states. Clinton probably would have as well.

            '1984': "Big Brother is watching you". 2008: You're going to end up on YouTube.

            by jhecht on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:51:00 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I live in Florida also & disagree. (0+ / 0-)

        There are a lot of us who didn't vote because we believed the DNC. Many of us are clear on how unfair it would be for Hillary to benefit from an election that was not well attended and not run. To suggest that it isn't important for a lesser known candidate to get into a state and campaign vigorously is absurd. The Florida vote did not reflect what could have been if a fair campaign had been allowed. And then there was no way to go back and fix it in a fair way.  

        I think Obama has a great chance to win Florida in the general. But Florida broke the rules and it is clear that Florida and Michigan should not be early primary states. I really understand now how important it is to allow candidates who are less known have a chance with a small state to put their ideas before an electorate in a fair way. I see how difficult it has been for Obama to win against Hillary's name recognition. So somehow we have to be sure that Florida won't do this again. That is my concern.

      •  Neither Obama Nor Dean Responsible for Florida (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        vcthree

        It was the Florida Democratic leadership, the majority Clinton supporters, who refused to conduct a primary according to Democratic Party rules.  Those Clinton supporters wanted an early primary to generate momentum for Clinton's campaign. Their arrogant defiance of Democratic Party rules backfired on them and on Florida voters.

        Clinton expressly agreed to those Democratic Party rules before any primaries commenced.  She only objected to the sanctions against Florida when she did not capture the Democratic Party nomination on February 5th's Super Tuesday and needed to get more delegates.  

        Had Hillory won the nomination on Super Tuesday, we would not be hearing a word from her about the poor "disenfranchized" Florida and Michigan voters.

        If Florida voters go for McCain or sit out the election, it will be because Clinton and her supporters have done everything they can to convince Florida voters that the Democratic National Committee and Obama are at fault, when that is totally false.

        Hillary's attempts to smear Obama and the National Democratic Party and to coerce the DNC into violating its own rules by recognizing the Florida vote is a good example of the kind of despicable actions which have undermined her campaign.

        •  You may think Dems will take Florida in Nov (0+ / 0-)

          but you are completely wrong about who wanted the early primary - it was the Fla Republican legislature.  No Dem in the legislature should have voted for it, even though they tied the paper ballot requirement to it.  However, even if every Dem voted no it would have passed the legislature.  Clinton support had nothing to do with it.    

          •  All Florida Dems But One Voted For Early Primary (0+ / 0-)

            While the Republicans hold the majority in the Florida legislature and could have passed on the early primary bill without Democratic support, all but one Florida legislator voted in favor of the early primary.  Florida Dems also rejected out of hand the DNC's offer of assistance to hold a separate Democratic  primary.

  •  The women in my life support Barrack (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lirtydies, FishBiscuit, soms

    My wife, my sister, my friends.   They are for the most part - age 50 but under 60.   I don't know anyone who supports Hillary.   I don't know what that says about who I hang out with - but I don't live anywhere near those folks in West Virginia who were interviewed on TV who said that they "would never vote for a black man" or they could never vote for someone who has a middle name of Hussein.

    Misogyny and racism are alive and well in the U.S.  

  •  i have been a feminist for 30 years (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Justina, tobendaro, soms

    and when ellen's list endorsed hillary clinton i stopped giving them money and explained why.  i think hillary clinton is a power hungry triangulator who is more conservative than progressive.  i asked ellen's list if the criteria was being female, why not support elizabeth dole?  barack obama was not my first choice, but i will gladly support him, particularly over hillary clinton.

    btw i voted her enthusiastically in her first senatorial election.  but i doubt i will ever vote for her again.

  •  I'm baffled by some of the feminists you mention (5+ / 0-)

    because Obama's candidacy is so extremely feminist.  He's pro-choice, pro-equal rights and his wife is one of the most empowered women I've ever heard or seen.  In fact, she's the one who convinced me to support him.  I went to see her speak at UCLA, and it was as if I were listening to Obama.  I see where he gets his game from.  She's uber-strong.

    Also, though I'm not sure about this, he may very well be the only candidate to to ever reference Barbara Jordan's contribution to American politics during a political debate.  I was floored when he did that.

    Although I understand perfectly that it was much harder for women of a certain age than it is for me now, and while I'll always appreciate their sacrifice; what I don't understand is why, for some of them, the President has to have two X chromosomes.  In fact, for me it's far more gratifying to see that the the legacy of the feminist struggle blossom in the person of Barack Obama.  

    If you ask me, those ladies did their job about as well as anyone could have imagined.  Just look at Barack.

    Son, you're makin' the same mistake with Iraq that I did with your mother. I didn't pull out in time.

    by fou on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:24:10 PM PDT

  •  Like wise with GAY candidates (7+ / 0-)

    Even as a gay man, I don't automatically support a gay candidate just because we share the same sexual preference.  Example to make my point quite clear: I would never vote for a Republican just because he/she was gay.  And if I don't vote for this gay Republican, am I homophobic?  Certainly not.

    To those women who say that it is anti-feminist not to vote for Hillary, I ask, would you vote for Anne Coulter if she ran for president?  

    Thank you for writing this diary.  It drives home the lesson that the civil rights people who came before us fought so hard so that when we vote for a candidate, that person's gender, race, sexual orientation, etc, should not be the deciding factor in our decisions.  Only until then do we live in a true egalitarian society.

  •  THANK YOU!! (6+ / 0-)

    I've been raging against the same kind of ignorant scapegoating, and it has been driving me crazy. Did you hear about the group of older women in Ohio that have formed a group to try to sabotage Obama in the general election in revenge against the Democratic Party for its "intense sexism"?? They have this attitude that Hillary had some sort of entitlement to the nomination, as if she should have gotten some special "free pass" card that no other candidate in history has received, just because she has a vagina. It blows my mind that these people are blaming sexism for her failure, and not her significant faults, or the fact she was running against an amazing candidate who pretty much anyone would have lost to. You can read my very lengthy blog post about this here if you want:

    http://www.thepersonalispolitical.co...

    Also, your post reminded me of what Oprah said when angry women attacked her as a "gender traitor" for endorsing Obama:

    "You know, after Iowa, there were some women who had the nerve to say to me, 'How could you Oprah? How could you? You are a traitor to your gender!'"

    crowd boos loudly

    "Yes, that's how I felt. I was both surprised by that comment and insulted, because I've been a woman my whole life, and every part of me believes in the empowerment of women, but the truth is I'm a free woman. I'm a free woman, I'm a free woman, I'm a free woman, and being free means you get to think for yourself, and you get to decide for yourself what to do. So I say I am not a traitor, no I'm not a traitor, I'm just following my own truth and that truth has led me to Barack Obama."

    Anyway, thank you! I'll be linking to this on my blog!

    •  i read that post a few days ago (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      THEpersonal ISpolitical

      it was excellent, you hit the nail on the head!

    •  Like this from my DD (3+ / 0-)

      Part of me wants to be a good Democrat and fall in line.  I understand all about playing the spoiler.

      My problem is that progressive women have gone to bat for every single progressive cause, every single disadvantaged group.  We were there to fight slavery, we were there to fight for union rights for everyone (not just white native born men), we were there fighting child labor, we were there fighting sweatshops, we were there fighting for universal education, we were there fighting for gay rights...

      Yet for all of our work, all of our devotion - when the moment comes, we always get pushed aside.  Women fought harder than any group for civil rights for African Americans.  Yet, at the climax of the movement, all of the credit went to two men: Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

      And here we are again.  Hillary Clinton is far and away the most knowledgeable, experienced, thoughtful, compassionate and tenacious person running for President.  She's being pushed aside for a man, who essentially has no accomplishments to his name, who shows up at the last minute ready to seize the mantel of the progressive movement.

      It is in our nature as women to support others.  To see injustice beyond that wrecked upon us.  But, at some point, we have to just stand up for ourselves.  At some point, we have to stand up and say, "Its our turn.  This time, you are supporting us."

      I think this time may be it.  I can't just think about the next election.  I have to think about the fundamentals of fair play.  The fundamental protection of the rights of women to be treated with the dignity and respect we have earned.

      They no longer see Hillary as Hillary the real person but Hillary the avatar of their dreams

      "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin

      by bws on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  typical (0+ / 0-)

        it also represents complete ignorance about the depth of Hillary's experience and Obama's very real accomplishments, it buys into Hillary's talking points, and that is the problem with many of her supporters, they only get their information from her, so they don't know how nasty and divisive her campaign has been, they don't know about her siding with the Republicans and attacking Democrats, they don't know Hillary's true character, and they buy into this lie that Obama is just some 12 year old rookie who has never done a decent thing in his life. Of course they think it was all about sexism when they have NO idea how much she has screwed up, or how great of a candidate Obama really is. It is ignorance, through and through.

    •  Thank YOU--and your blog post was great. (0+ / 0-)

      Thanks for the link--and I loved that Oprah comment. I'm not usually a huge Oprah fan, but that brought tears to my eyes.

  •  Every time an AA candidate or that AA candidate's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro, soms

    supporters let the campaign or even the conversation become about "this isn't fair because of the racism and that's wrong."  it puts that candidate further from winning.  The same applies to female candidates.  

    "Why is my candidate the one that should have your vote?"  Answering that question is the only way to win an election.  The other way is... oh, wait... their isn't another way (unless you own a few yellow streaked, spineless, punk SCOTUS justice's with no respect for the law or democracy).

    Hell yes, there is racism and sexism that effects both candidates.  Absolutely, it is wrong.  It flies in the face of equality under the law which is a founding concept of our democracy.  Just about  every democrat understands that.  The thing is: "The other candidate's supporters are a bunch of insensitive jerks!"  is not  a vote getter whether it's true or not.

    If we want to have a big fight about sexism or racism then we should point it out  every time that we perceive it (real or imagined) and we should get very angry and righteously indignant.  If we want to deal major damage to racism and/or sexism, we should not allow ourselves to get off message and fail to answer the only question that matters in an election.  Say it with me: "Why is my candidate the one that should have your vote."

    Win in the face of bigotry, seize the reigns of power, change the state of things.  That's how to make progress if you're a feminist.

    It's just my not so humble opinion, but I had to get it off of my chest.  So everyone go ahead and spend a few minutes being good and mad about all of the sexism and racism.  It's understandable to be.  It's right to be.  Now, put that distractions aside and go about winning the war... damn it!

  •  Hillary "supporters" out to divide party (7+ / 0-)

    I put the word supporters in quotes because sometimes I find it hard to believe that some of these female Hillary supporters actually support Hillary. I'm taken back by the use of male adjectives to describe Hillary, as if to be president, she has to be more manly than her competitors.  Or the readiness to disparage Obama on religious, racial and gender terms. The truly awful op-ed in the Wash Post today is a good example.  

    Kathleen Parker wrote:

    Well, at least they didn't kiss. I was bracing myself for the lip lock Wednesday when John Edwards endorsed Barack Obama.

    and

    Obama and Edwards look and talk pretty, but Clinton, unflinching and steely, exudes pure brawn. When the time comes to sit across from the likes of Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a chill in the heart may beat a thrill up the leg.

    Instead of pushing the idea that a feminine voice can lead the country, too many Hillary supporters are ready to drain the femininity from their candidate (and throw gay people and African-Americans under the bus, I might add).  Obama and Edwards are described as feminine, pretty, and girly as opposed to the "pure brawn" of Clinton.  I think the idea that a female candidate has to turn herself into some caricature of a tough Republican male to win isn't progress, its a gigantic step backwards.  

    From talk of Obama "waiting his turn," to questions about his religion and manliness, and finally threats to vote for McCain, who views are openly hostile to women's issues, I have lost a lot of faith in Hillary's more noisy supporters.  I hope they put their thinking caps back on in time for the general election.

  •  Thanks for Saying Something That I Feel as Well (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FishBiscuit, soms, From a distance

    My mother-in-law, a Clinton supporter, was just here visiting. She is 82 years old and still lives with the scars and hurts of her younger years. She does not realize that women have achieved equality to the extent we have, that sexual harassment is far more rare, and that young women graduate from college in greater numbers than young men. It really made me realize what progress we have made.

    Amongst her age group, men are still chauvinists. But, like you, at 54 I have enjoyed equal career success to my husbands, free from harassment of any kind since I was 30. My dear husband is an equal partner in every way, sharing household duties and treating me with respect.

    To me, electing a woman, in and of itself, would not fix anything. Electing a woman of superior talent and wisdom - yes I would be thrilled to do that. But, Hillary, though smart and capable, is not that. She is Bill's wife and has not shown the leadership ability that he has. She flubbed up healthcare reform. And she is part of the politics of the past that we have to move beyond. I cannot support her over Obama, because of the potential for positive transformation that he represents.

    Only small minds want always to be right - Louis XIV

    by Jamais Vu on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:39:53 PM PDT

  •  Amazing. Not a single dissent. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bensdad, Pumpkinlove, DWinFLA, gavrik

    Well, I, for one, feel sorry for the diarist.  Because apparently the diarist (and all the commenters) really do believe that sexism is not an issue, or that it is an issue from the past that has already been resolved.

    We're more than 50% of the country.  And we're 16% of Congress.

    Everyone around here seems oh-so-eager to point to a "number of" women in elected office, as if that woefully inadequate number is actually something to be proud of.

    As I wrote in my diary yesterday, I do not blame sexism for Hillary's loss.

    But I find these kinds of diaries truly reprehensible.  The glee with which self-proclaimed feminists declare their disgust with Hillary, and with other feminists, is truly alarming.

    How is it that we, as the party who was responsible for the Year of the Woman, have fallen so short, or even gone backwards?

    I understand that women, even feminists, can look at the candidates and think that Obama better represents their interests.

    What I cannot understand is how they could think that is anything but tragic.  Damnit, we DO need to elect more women to our government -- because then maybe the few who are there won't feel compelled to behave so much like men in what is still so very much a "boys' club."

    I congratulate the diarist for feeling so thrilled about her choice in Obama.  But I feel tremendously sorry for her too that she apparently cannot even recognize the tremendous loss -- for feminists, for women, for the party, and for the country -- that Hillary's defeat, and the atrocious sexism doled out by the media and indeed fellow Democrats, represents this year.

    Shame.  Shame.

    •  There is dissent. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angry Mouse, gavrik

      Great comment

      How did I live without him?

      by Pumpkinlove on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:48:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes Of Course (4+ / 0-)

      there is sexism, I mean DUH! But we're not trying to achieve perfection with this election we're just trying to get the goddamn criminals out of our White House! Yes, we definitely need many, MANY more women in government and as CEOs of giant companies, and as the wealthiest in the country, etc. YES, yes, yes a thousand times yes. BUT...we can't gain any of that if  the Republicans keep hold of the government. For many reasons, and in a way that cannot be stopped, (and shouldn't be) Obama has captured the fire in our bellies and helped us believe in hope again. If he's willing to take the heat, risk his life (and you'd better believe that's the truth) and everything he's got to save our country from disaster (because that IS where we are) well then I want to do everything I can to give him that chance. If Clinton had come clean about her vote for the Iraq war, like my first-choice candidate John Edwards had, then I'd be more supportive of her. If she were not slinging back shots and swaggering around like some over-sexed cowboy (as if we needed more of that) talking tough and waving metiforical guns around, then I'd be more supportive of her. If she seemed more interested in saving America than winning some kind of entitlement contest I'd be more supportive of her.

      Just because Clinton is a woman doesn't make her my candidate. It's simply not enough.

      When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice, all is lost. Therefore you must not give up. www.politicalartwork.blogspot.com

      by EmilyD on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:59:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, I understand all of that... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bensdad, Pumpkinlove, gavrik

        But what troubles me is that the women who come to that conclusion don't seem to feel any sadness about it.  There is no remorse, no regret.  They don't feel the loss of possibility.  

        Instead, they scorn the women who do support Hillary.  Instead, they laugh off accussations of sexism, or deny its significance in this race.

        Instead, they hold up signs and wear T-shirts and say, proudly, that they are feminists for Obama -- without, apparently, mourning for the loss of what could have, finally, been.

        That is what troubles me.  Especially among young women (of which, honestly, I am one, since I'm 29), who say that the "old feminism" is ancient history and everything's changed since Gloria Steinem, and those old-timers are just living in the past, unaware of all the progress we've made since then.

        And yes, we have made progress.  Some progress.  But not enough.  Not nearly enough.  And, in fact, in many ways, we've gone backwards.

        (And for Christ's sake, stop picking on Gloria Steinem.  The woman is a legend and a hero, even people don't agree with everything she says.  She gave us the word "Ms.", for crying out loud, and a lot more than that.  

        I sure wish my fellow young feminists would show some fucking respect.)

        •  Should I have felt sad when Harriet Miers (3+ / 0-)

          withdrew her candidacy? Should I feel sad when I read the criticisms of Condi Rice? How about the female minions of Alberto Gonzales?

          Game on, Barack! You're my guy--now don't f--k it up.

          by Azdak on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:31:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I guess that's where we have the problem. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gavrik

            You look at Hillary Clinton and see Harriet Miers and Condi Rice.

            I don't.

            •  BINGO! (3+ / 0-)

              This is the true fault line, I think.

              I have been a proud feminist my whole life, and you are SO RIGHT that there has been sexism in this campaign. The criticism of Hillary's tears, for example, really pissed me off (that people could not accept a genuine display of emotion from her, and had to twist it into some sort of calculated manipulation--UGH.)

              BUT--I am NOT sorry Hillary won't be the nominee, Mouse, I'm glad, because I want a clean break from the mindset that authorized the Iraq war. I know her supporters view her vote differently, but to me she enabled the Iraq invasion and the policy of preemptive war. I don't say that to persuade you of anything--just explaining MY rationale for not supporting her. She is far, far, from representing my values and ideas about America, our place in the world, etc. This is an honest philosophical difference among Dems.

              "It is time to make peace with the planet." - Al Gore (Nobel acceptance speech)

              by hannahlk on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:34:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Agreed. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hannahlk, gavrik

                Her Iraq vote was the reason I stopped paying attention to her in 2002.  It's the reason I rolled my eyes when she jumped into the race.  It's the reason I told my mother and grandmother, "Hell no, I don't care if she's our best chance to get a woman into the White House, that vote killed it for me."

                But...

                She won me over with the debates last fall.  She really did.  She reminded me of how brilliant and knowledgeable she is, and yes, that she is the toughest broad on the planet.  She reminded me that she will not be swiftboated, that she will take the fight to the Republicans, that she will not wimp out the way so many Democrats do.

                I've made my peace with her on the Iraq war vote.  She knows now the war is wrong, she knows it needed to be ended, and she has a plan to do so.  And no other candidate in the race had a better position, in my opinion, with the exception of Kucinich.  

                And, frankly, I really had hopes about Obama in 2004, but he disappointed the hell out of me once he got to the Senate.  And the fact that his Iraq votes matched Hillary's meant, to me, that he was no different.  Which means that the Iraq war was not going to be the deciding factor in my decision this time around.

                But that doesn't mean I don't understand -- and respect -- other Democrats who feel they cannot support her because of the vote.  I really do get it, because I was there too.

                •  Where was that vaunted toughness (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  EmilyD, Julia C

                  for the past 7 years in the Senate?  Why was she not  tough on Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld?  Where was the "fighter" we keep hearing about?

                  Sculpture is like farming. If you just keep at it, you can get quite a lot done. Ruth Asawa

                  by BrooklynWeaver on Sat May 17, 2008 at 09:02:44 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The "fighter" meme (0+ / 0-)

                    originated in a comment that David Gergen made on CNN after the Austin debate.  He picked up on a phrase she used that she "fought for" some issue and said she needs to emphasize that to distinguish herself.

                    48 hours or so after "I am honored to be here with Barack Obama, we saw the "tough" Hillary saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"  

                    Gergen deserves credit for this very effective trope, but if another trope were effective, she'd have used that one.

        •  No. (4+ / 0-)

          No, I do feel a sense of loss and regret.  I wanted to support Hillary very much.  I would love it to be such that 50% of the government is made of women.  

          However, I refuse to cry tears for Hillary when she is out campaigned (and, frankly) out classed by a worthy opponent.  

          As far as picking on Gloria Steinem, I find it to be troubling that those who tout the "old feminist" ways don't find it to be a sign of progress that the "young feminists" don't feel the need do so as well.  As a battle progresses, so do tactics and generals.  

        •  You know something (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Justina, EmilyD

          Respect is EARNED, not demanded. Hillary deserves respect as a human being. I will grant her that. What I  know of her life and so-called accomplishments does NOT measure up to the mythology being paraded throughout this campaign. I'm sorry but I created a chart at the beginning of the campaign and I was NOT impressed by her record or her life story. Speaking as First Lady in front of Women in Beijing in 1995 does not a feminist make, when many of the people I work with in the trenches from developing countries have toiled on behalf of women to no avail. The likes of Steinem have not done one iota for poor women around the world. What you see is a feminist struggle brewing long under the radar now come to the fore. Class and race issues have long been paid lip service among the Establishment feminist class and now they want support for a token feminist? No

          "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

          by zizi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:51:51 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  oh I think it's very sad we have not yet had a (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cooking in brooklyn

          woman candidate that could truly inspire many more of us - including independents and soft republicans - I toyed with the idea of voting for Hillary just to break that ceiling - but I honestly do not think she's the best we need right now in this country - and against the mess we're inheriting from Bush & Co.

    •  Mouse (6+ / 0-)

      Have you even considered that the sexism you perceive was an easy way out of dismissing Hillary because of HER flaws, not women as a gender flaws?

      Do you not see the problem is HER?  She is the wrong woman to be carrying the mantle for so many of us.

      It almost reminds me of when I left my first husband, I chose the kinder way of leaving, and never was cruel about his flaws, but almost should have been because it only prolonged his agony because he kept hoping I would come back

      "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin

      by bws on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:05:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm not sure I follow your point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bensdad, Pumpkinlove

        Are you saying that being sexist toward Hillary is the kinder way of rejecting her?  Like, making fun of her "fat ankles" is more gentle than criticizing her policy?

        If that's your point, I think it's absurd.  

        If I've missed your point, please clarify.

        •  This is a pathetic comment (4+ / 0-)

          Our dislike of Hillary is personal. We don't like Hillary the person.

          It's not sexism towards women that makes her distasteful. There is nothing that would please me more than to have a woman in the Presidency whom I could be proud of. The problem is the individual: Hillary's words, her votes, her choices, her dissembling. Her smug arrogance that "it is her turn".

          I feel the same way about John McCain. They are birds of an opportunistic feather: arrogant and massively compromised.

          You cheapen the word "sexism" and rob it of its meaning by calling the distaste for Mrs. Clinton "sexist".

          White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 10/07)

          by Glinda on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:59:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You misunderstand me. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            gavrik

            Let me try again.

            I do not think the distaste for Clinton is primarily about sexism.  I understand that people have legitimate issues with her -- her policies, her voting record, her campaign style -- that have nothing to do with gender.

            I get that.  I am not trying to be dismissive of that.

            However, it seems to me that people who have legitimate problems with Clinton make the leap that because they do not like her "personally," that there has been no sexist treatment of her during this campaign.  

            And I disagree with that.

            You can dislike her for policies, et cetera.  You can also sit by silently, and therefore complicitly, as the media and the Democratic party embraces sexist terminology and standards and expectations of Clinton.

            I do not believe that disagreeing with Clinton on substantive issues means that you cannot also agree that we have witnessed horrible sexism during this campaign, and that it seems even the Democratic party has a problem with it.

            And in response to my diary on this subject yesterday, I was pleasantly surprised to see so many self-proclaimed Obama supporters say just that.

            •  Honestly, angry mouse, I haven't seen a lot of (4+ / 0-)

              sexism. Some, certainly. But I simply haven't seen the degree that you have. What I have seen is an incredibly privileged and arrogant woman who EXPECTED she would be president.

              I DO care about sexism. I just don't think Hillary is much of a victim.

              And I KNOW how it hurts when you feel your candidate isn't appreciated, is treated unfairly, etc.

              We seems to have very different perspectives.

            •  Some, but not as much as some people suggest. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Glinda

              Was there sexism before Iowa?  I didn't see any.  Did she get a lot of negative coverage after Iowa?  Yes, but no more than anybody who campaign was in the middle of a meltdown.  Campaigns that are run poorly get bad coverage!  Then when she started her take every low road possible strategy, people got angry like they would with anyone.  If she were any other male politician, I honestly believe they would have gotten similar negative coverage.  Remember the Dean Scream?  Not sexist.  If that had happened to Hillary, her supporters would have no doubt blamed sexism.  Candidate's who are losing, get harsher criticism.  It's the nature of the system, especially when they start acting desperate.  People voted for Obama because they liked him as a candidate.  As a woman I wanted to support Hillary but couldn't.  Some day I am sure I will be able to vote enthusiastically for a woman president, but not this time.

              "Will the Democratic Party stand up for the next generation? That's my Patriotism!" - Barack Obama, May 2nd 2008

              by choochmac on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Not absurd (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lirtydies

          It's the "It's not you, it's me" scenario, allows her to have some dignity, she has an "out"

          Hillary can blame it on the status quo, keep her dignity intact...she will never have to face up to admit the problem was her, not her gender

          No one will ever have to say the problem is you, you personally

          I don't believe anyone is being sexist to her, she's playing that card as her "out" for losing, it has to be since she can't come up with any justifiable defense for the loss other than she was the wrong person at this time

          "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin

          by bws on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:14:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But that ignores the very real problem (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bensdad, gavrik

            of sexism.  And (as I've said and written many times, including in a diary yesterday), I do not think that she lost because of sexism.

            BUT...

            I think sexism was prevalent during this campaign, and deserves -- in fact, requires -- an honest analysis within our party.  That analysis isn't even really about Clinton; it's about sexism in general, and how so many in our party seems to have turned a blind eye to it because it does not fit within their support of Obama.

            Hillary can blame sexism for her loss.  I don't agree with that as the primary explanation fo her loss, because yes, she made many mistakes during this campaign that have nothing to do with gender.

            But this constant denial of sexism as an issue worth discussing troubles me greatly.  I have seen many comments, diaries, discussions, articles, etc., about how this campaign has forced our country, and our party, to confront the ugliness of racism that still exists, even today in the 21st century.

            I have not seen such a reaction to the issue of sexism.

            Just as racism is not about Obama, sexism is not about Clinton.

            And for us to dismiss the entire conversation, because it involves Clinton, is, I think, a huge mistake.

            And we will pay for that mistake the next time a woman runs for president.  And I swear to god, if I do not see the Democratic party change its tune the next time, I really will be done.  

            (And yeah, I know nobody around here gives a shit about my little vote, but so what?  I'll be done anyway.)

            •  (((Mouse))) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Philoguy

              Unfortunately, right now in the context of this election the two discussions can't be separated for the discussion

              Yes there is an issue of sexism that needs to be addressed & discussed openly & honestly

              However right now the topic has been "tainted" because we have a candidate that uses & is still using gender like a weapon, wraps herself in "gender" flag, no differently than the TheoCons did with religion

              Barack's speech on race worked & opened a dialog because while he was directly impacted by the issue, he didn't "use" the issue to his benefit

              "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin

              by bws on Sat May 17, 2008 at 03:33:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I've wondered what would have happened (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                bws

                if Hillary had given a speech on sexism like Barack gave a speech on sexism.

                I don't KNOW. And I don't think any of us can realistically profess to know. I suspect, however, that the message might have been rejected by many simply because of the messenger (and her disapproval rate). Hopefully some day we WILL have that address.

            •  Yes, some comments were sexist. Agreed, but you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Philoguy

              seem to be acknowledging that she lost mainly to other issues.  If so, then her supporters also need to show a little introspection and admit that those of us who didn't vote for her are not sexist.  There are many, like the diarist points out who are equating a vote against Hillary as a vote for sexism.  Wrong, wrong, wrong.  Has Obama been the subject of racist media tendencies, e.g. non-stop video of Rev. Wright anyone?  Yes, but Obama supporters generally do not insist that a vote for Hillary is a vote for racism (only recently in places like West VA where the exit polls show a real problem have comments in that direction regrettably come to the surface).  We still have a ways to go in this country on both issues, but you can't use his success as a way of dismissing her loss.

              "Will the Democratic Party stand up for the next generation? That's my Patriotism!" - Barack Obama, May 2nd 2008

              by choochmac on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:02:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  does sexism exist? you bet (0+ / 0-)

              so does racism - and so does a media populated with what seems to be both male & female idiots -and "pundits" brought in for/against everyone and everything that are enough to grind one's teeth down to nubs.
              Actually - I think the media was/is mostly into the thrill of the game - tear them (male/female) up - and tear them down...

      •  Very well put. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lirtydies, FishBiscuit

        This is not about gender.  It's about a BAD candidate.

        Hillary = Palpatine
        -2.75/-1.38

        by jkddude on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:19:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You just don't get it. (3+ / 0-)

      If the woman losing the election were ANYONE other than Hillary, I could see your point.  

      If Boxer, or Pelosi, or Sebelius, or some other candidate without a shameful history of corruption, corporate ties, and "win at any cost" tactics were in this position, I would be quite sympathetic.

      But Hillary has shown herself to be corrupt and power-hungry beyond measure.  She is the antithesis of what the progressive movement is all about.

      Hillary = Palpatine
      -2.75/-1.38

      by jkddude on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:17:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, you again. (0+ / 0-)

        You don't seriously expect me to actually engage in a fruitful conversation with you, do you?

        Why don't you just leave me the hell alone before you provoke my own Keyboard Tourette's?

        •  Am I wrong? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fixed Point Theorem

          Please tell me what I got wrong.

          Or are you adopting Clinton tactics... discredit the opponent and ignore the substance of the argument.

          Hillary = Palpatine
          -2.75/-1.38

          by jkddude on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:24:30 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  In your case, yes. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Bensdad, gavrik

            You have completely discredited yourself with me.  You are rude, offensive, dismissive, immature, and obnoxious.

            So yeah, I don't really care about the "substance" of your arguments.

            You have no credibility with me.

            And by the way, you're not my opponent.  You're just some jackass on a blog.

        •  You are a rude little thing. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          mechascorpio

          You cannot be taken seriously.

          White woman over 50 for OBAMA!! (Endorsed 10/07)

          by Glinda on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:00:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Usually, I'm not. (0+ / 0-)

            But I've engaged in pointless back and forth with this jkddude fellow, and it's useless.  He is intentionally rude and delights in his rudeness, so I'm done trying to have a civil conversation with him.

            (And I'm fairly certain I'm not the only one around here who feels that way, as evidenced by another conversation last night.)

            Check my history, Glinda, and you'll see that I'm actually very good about maintaining a civil level of discourse, even with those with whom I disagree.

            But jkddude has crossed far too many lines, far too often, for my taste.

    •  We haven't gone backwards at all.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, bws

      We have had a woman run for the top elected office in the country for the nomination of a national party who was treated as a legitimate candidate and who was judged thoroughly and fairly by the electorate and was not selected--not because of her gender but because she ran a crappy campaign and more voters agreed with the positions and qualifications of another candidate.

      You are trying to force the Clinton candidacy into your narrative and it just doesn't fit.

      Denying Clinton the nomination is not denying the history of, or current existence of sexism in our culture. The two have nothing to do with each other.

      Game on, Barack! You're my guy--now don't f--k it up.

      by Azdak on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:20:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not what I said. (0+ / 0-)

        To be clear, I don't think Hillary's defeat is proof that we've gone backwards.

        But the progress we started to see in 1992 has stalled.  We had 7 women in the Senate in 1992.  We've only added another 9.  In sixteen years, we've only added another 9.  We are still abysmally short of equal representation.

        And access to reproductive health is less.  

        And the Supreme Court has issued repeated major setback on equal pay and abortion rights (no thanks to President Bush ignoring the very public please of the retiring Justice O'Connor that he replace her seat with another woman).

        •  Identity politics? (0+ / 0-)

          And by your reasoning exactly how many African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, and Asian Americans have we seen in the senate? Were feminists this angry when Jesse helms literally ran Carol Moseley Braun out of the senate in the 1990s, or when her own bid run for the presidency stalled? Why do we have to play zero sum games on identity politics? Why is Obama's success considered as undue, acquired at the expense of Hillary? This divide and rule politics only emboldens the true villains of patriarchy who at this moment are laughing all the way to the ballot box. Why can't Hillary and her supporters be happy for Obama? Why does she deserve this and not him? Why are the racial slights against him discounted and her sexist slurs valued more?

          "Scandals don't stay underground like cassava: they always come out" -- Ewe Proverb

          by zizi on Sat May 17, 2008 at 05:05:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I dissent from the spirit of this diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Angry Mouse

      as I wrote upthread.

      John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."

      by desmoinesdem on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  So you really do think I have to vote for a woman (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justina, Philoguy, mechascorpio, MKSinSA

      because I am one? I just don't understand that mentality.  I don't believe that sexism is gone--I'm not that naive. But what DID all those suffragists fight for, if I just have to vote based on my gender alone and not on who I actually think would be the best candidate for women AND men?

      I agree that it's high time we had a female president.  But not Hillary. No way.

      And by the way, I realize it's not a contest, but since you bring up how few female senators there are--think about how few governors and senators are African American...wow. We need some movement on that front, too. Maybe now that Hillary has helped to clear the way for women candidates (and I do believe that she has) and now that Barack has helped clear the way for African American candidates, we'll start seeing a lot more of them, at every level in politics.

    •  Hillary was wrong on the war & would (0+ / 0-)

      not even apologize for her vote.  She made it clear that the Iraq War isn't even enough, and she would like a war with Iran, too, and voted that way.  She even talked of "obliterating Iran".  That is the opposite of the values most women hold dear.  So you have one hell of a nerve coming here and saying "it's tragic" that some of us refused to vote for her.  It would be immoral to vote for someone who has no regrets for her vote for the Iraq War, and is looking to start a new war.  Identity politics is the equivalent to the situation in Iraq:  where Shi'ites vote for Shi'ites, and Sunnis vote for Sunnis.  I am completely opposed to it:  I vote for the person.  Period.

      Oh, and if your stupid theory is correct, then I should have voted for Thelma Drake in the 2nd district of Virginia, since she is a woman.  What she also is is a Republican lackey of Dick Cheney's who voted against s-chip and is for staying in Iraq forever.  God, you are clueless.

      John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"

      by beachmom on Sat May 17, 2008 at 07:57:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary Clinton is a bizzarre role model for (13+ / 0-)

    feminists!  She is a woman who is still married to a man I would have run out of my life long ago--why does a strong woman need a serial philanderer?  She owes her Senate seat to her husband--most other women have had to work their way up through the ranks--local offices, state legislature etc.  It is rare to jump immediately into a US Senate seat!  She would be nowhere without him...wow--there's a GREAT role model for young women!  She won't let her 27 year old daughter talk to the press--she is a strong woman--why is she being held back?  

    Hillary is not a role model I would like any of my students to follow--this is all we can show as women?  At least Elizabeth Dole served as a Cabinet Secretary and it seems she and Bob may actually like each other!  

    I want a far better role model as the first woman President!

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

    by PoliSigh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:42:17 PM PDT

    •  One part of me agrees with this... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Justina, PoliSigh

      the part that doesn't approve of infidelity.

      But another part of me doesn't agree with this...the part that thinks humans can overcome differences and forgive each other.  The part that recognizes that humans are not saints.

      •  Agreed--but how much do you forgive? (0+ / 0-)

        If it was once I could see working it out, but it seems that is not the case.  Plus, how much do you forgive?  Humiliating her in front of the whole nation, lying about it, I guess I am just not that forgiving and I know I will be fine without that kind of man in my life!

        "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

        by PoliSigh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I really should proof read....... (0+ / 0-)

          plus, how much do you forgive???

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

          by PoliSigh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  That's not really up to us, is it? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leema, ocdemgal49, gavrik

          I am amazed at the way people, particularly women, judge Hillary for the decisions she's made in her marriage.  Every time I read a comment that does so, I wonder if the commenter has ever been married.

          Marriage is complex and difficult for everyone.  Even the most solid of marriages have problems.  

          We make decisions.  We make compromises.  We make sacrifices.  We fight, and hurt, and hate, and forgive.  That's all part of marriage, as I understand it.

          I shudder at the thought of the decisions I've made in my marriage being scrutinized and judged by the entire world.  I can't imagine it.  I can't imagine having to defend myself, and my marriage, on national TV.

          In discussing marriage with my fellow married girlfriends, there is one theme that emerges from every conversation: "Only you can decide what to do."

          So how it is that so many people feel justified in judging Hillary Clinton for the decisions she's made in her marriage is totally and utterly beyond my comprehension.

          •  She isn't just a married woman - (0+ / 0-)

            She's a public figure, asking us to hand her the presidency.

            It's entirely legitimate to look at her life as a whole and determine what sort of person she is.

            Yes, many woman stay with philandering husbands.  But it is entirely true that she used the Clinton presidency to gain her senate seat -- in very shady ways (FALN, Marc Rich, New Square pardons).

            Hillary = Palpatine
            -2.75/-1.38

            by jkddude on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:23:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  She is still a rotten role model as a public (0+ / 0-)

            person.  I see way too many women, especially young women STILL feel they are nothing without a man--any man will do, so matter what they do, no matter how abusive.  Philandering IS abusive.  

            Yes it is their decision, but putting yourself out there as a role model is a different matter. This is the life SHE chose and to be out there and judged by the world.

            No, I have not been married.  Your judgment of me is really irritating--do you think relationships are any different?  Friendships?  Yes I do know marriage is difficult (duh, no--I are a dolt).  I have standards that I will not compromise--for anyone.

            "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

            by PoliSigh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:59:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The point though is that I would love to see a (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lirtydies

              woman elected President who got there because of her qualifications, not because her husband was President, not because she was handed the Senate position without ever having held public office.  

              "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

              by PoliSigh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                gavrik

                A lot of women get to public office because of their husbands.  My old Congresswoman, Lois Capps, took her husband's seat.

                And Mrs. Bono...

                And Elizabeth Dole didn't get to the Senate on her "merits alone."

                But then, we have plenty of men in politics who didn't get there on their own, either.  Would Bill have made it to the White House without Hillary?

                How about Sen. Kennedy?  And his son (?), Rep. Kennedy?  (And hey, while we're at it, how about the entire Kennedy clan?)

                How about Pres. Bush?  And his brother, the former governor?

                How about Bob Casey?  Did he make it to the Senate on his own, without the benefit of his strong family connections in politics?

                Didn't Senator Dodd come from a political family?

                Sen. Feinstein's husband may not be in politics, but he is part of a gigantic corporation that happens to be the recipient of substantial contracts in Iraq.  So has her husband helped her along the way?  Has his fortune helped her?  Has he been able to call his rich and powerful friends to help raise money for her?

                But I think this is part of the double-standard...We fully expect men to run for office with the assistance and support of their wives.  In fact, we take notice if a wife is "conspicuously" absent from the campaign trail.  Is Barack really going to make it to the White House without Michelle?

                We don't blink when politicians come from political families.

                But for a woman to make it to the highest office in the land, somehow there is an expectation that she should do it "alone."  That she cannot come from a political family, that she cannot use her powerful and persuasive husband to her advantage.

                Of course, I highly doubt an unmarried woman could make it to the White House.  I'm sure speculations would fly that she was a lesbian, or couldn't get a man, or some such nonsense.  

                So I guess my question is back to you: Under what circumstances could a woman rise to political office without being dismissed as "only" getting there because of her husband?

                •  I have no problem with woman getting the support. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  PoliSigh

                  It's taking the credit for things that they have not done, which bothers me as a feminist.  I could have voted for Hillary and would not have held her history against her (either Bill's trangressions or how she got her Senate seat).  It was the "35 years of experience" which got me.  If she had run on her own record then I would not have a had a problem (and yes she could have used some White House experience as a plus, but not exaggerate it).

                  "Will the Democratic Party stand up for the next generation? That's my Patriotism!" - Barack Obama, May 2nd 2008

                  by choochmac on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:18:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I didn't say a woman without a supportive (0+ / 0-)

                  spouse--but this one is there because of him, not necessarily because of her own accomplishments--again she did not work her way up--she just pushed a deserving NY candidate out of the way so she could represent a state she didn't even live in.  

                  It's America--she is welcome to run for whatever she wants--I just don't think she is a good feminist role model!

                  No double standard here--I don't like dynasties--most do not work out all that well.  

                  And let's not let an unmarried person run for office because someone might say something?  Oh please.

                  "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

                  by PoliSigh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 04:45:13 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Hmm... (0+ / 0-)

                    she just pushed a deserving NY candidate out of the way

                    I presume you would not say the same of Obama...?

                    As I have been told many times, no one deserves or is entitled to the White House.

                    As for the unmarried issue...Hey, I'd happily vote for an unmarried candidate.  It makes no difference to me.  But let's not pretend it would not be an issue that the cable news networks would have a field day with.  Look at the assumptions made about Condi Rice.  An unmarried woman...she must be a lesbian, right?  (And no, I don't give a shit whether she is, but again, there's what I don't care about, and then there's what the general electorate cares about, and rarely do I find myself in agreement with them.)

                    I find your dismissal of Clinton's accomplishments enlightening -- because that's part of the problem, and exactly my point.  Because her accomplishments have been part of her husband's accomplishments, they are dismissed out of hand.  Her experience is dismissed out of hand.

                    I've seen people say that if being First Lady qualifies someone to be president, why not run Laura Bush?

                    That, in my opinion, is utterly naive.  Clinton was not just any First Lady.  She was her husband's closest adviser.  She brought with her more knowledge and experience and understanding than Laura will ever have.  She was unique in her involvement with her husband's professional life, from Arkansas to DC.  And I think she has demonstrated that since entering the Senate -- her command of masses of information is incredibly impressive and proves, to me at least, that she wasn't just there to organize the Easter egg hunts.  She was involved, she was paying attention, she had a voice, even if it was in private.

                    We can go around and around on this, but at the end of the day, Democrats MUST understand that the issues of sexism are real and serious.  And regardless of what happens with Hillary, the Democratic party runs the risk of losing the support of one of its strongest voting blocs if it does not many any effort on this issue.

                    As I've said, I'll give the Democratic party another chance.  But the next time a woman runs, I don't want to go through this again.  I don't want to watch the media treat another woman the way it has treated Hillary -- while Democrats sit by silently, doing nothing, or, dear god, encouraging it.

                    •  I can't stand her because she is a liar (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      mechascorpio

                      and her ambition is a frightening thing to behold.  She has attempted to bring down a good man with innuendo and ridiculous charges all for HER ambition.  She doesn't give a fig about the Democratic Party.  Her supporters are vile and she should be ashamed of her whole campaign.  

                      This race was hers to lose and she lost it.  

                      I am not basing any of this on sexism.  She represents that women cannot get ahead unless they have husbands who are successful first and they put up with any behavior he might exhibit.  

                      This "voting bloc" you refer to would be downright stupid if they voted Republican or stayed home--the Democratic Party is the best hope for women's equality in our society.

                      Obama will fight for women's issues and as a woman, I have far more trust in him than in her.  

                      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

                      by PoliSigh on Sat May 17, 2008 at 08:59:54 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Astounding. (0+ / 0-)

                        Every time I try to focus the conversation on the issue of sexism, all you can say is, essentially, "Hillary sucks."

                        It's like there's this amazing mental block -- and it's not just you, it's a lot of people around here, and throughout the party.

                        And it's that mental block that scares me.  It's that mental block that makes me question what the fuck the Democratic party REALLY stands for?

                        I've watched the party embarrass itself for seven years now.  I've tried hard to stand by it, to hope that the party would grow some collective balls.  I'd even hoped that when Obama went to the Senate in 2004, he would help lead the Democrats out of the darkness of Iraq, and some some fucking courage.

                        But this, this utter and total debasement of women...It shocks me more than the rest.  How can the Democratic party be THAT self-destructive?  Does anyone really believe that Democrats can win anything without the blood, sweat, and tears of women, especially older women?  It's THOSE women who make the calls, knock on doors, work the polls...

                        But there's this mental block you and other share.  You can't see it.  You refuse to see it.  You think it will magically melt away once the primaries are over and Obama does his "hope and change" unity thing.

                        I have heard women, young and old, say things I never expected to hear from them.  Women who are as solidly Democratic as it gets.  And they've been questioning their loyalty to the Democratic party lately.  They've been questioning whether the Democratic party is really as good on women's issues as it claims.  They've been questioning whether the Democratic party really values them, or whether it simply takes them for granted.  I mean, if you're a liberal pro-choice woman, where the hell are you going to go?  McCain?  Republicans?  Libertarians?  The SCOTUS and Roe hang over their heads, and they feel they have no choice to stick with the Democrats.

                        But they also feel that this could well be the last straw.  If Democrats don't realize what they've done -- if they don't fix it -- I think Democrats will be quite surprised to find one of their most reliable voting blocs is not so reliable in the future.

                        And that is a fucking shame.

                        •  I think you have the mental block-- (0+ / 0-)

                          please give examples of "this utter and total debasement of women"--the media has tiptoed around her and treated her with kid gloves, the Republicans who hate her anyway will use sexism against her--but what the hell have Democrats done? They dared to vote for Obama? You just keep rambling about sexism--I listed why I don't support Hillary and the point you missed is that none of them is sexist.  I really doubt it was a Democrat who created the tasteless Hillary nutcracker.   I am really quite amazed at how seriously she has been taken and treated.

                          This whole discussion began by my saying Hillary is not a feminist heroine by my definition.  Now I have a mental block because I don't feel debased--sorry, I'm lost.

                          Hillary doesn't win so it's because of sexism?  My point which you refuse to acknowledge is that she lost because of the things I have been listing and I don't think of her as a great role model of feminism--she has  not acted like much of a feminist.

                          I suppose if you define everything as sexist, you will find it--and that is "a fucking shame".

                          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." ~ H.L.Mencken

                          by PoliSigh on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:58:05 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                    •  You are remarkable. (0+ / 0-)

                      This blog is so inhospitable to HRC supporters that I have pretty much ceased trying to defend my choice of candidate.  You are a wonderful, lucid writer, and I want to thank you for your efforts, and to interject one point here:  I wanted Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, and tolerated Kerry, as well.  All lovely losers.  This time, I want Clinton. And, unlike you, I am not giving the Democratic party another chance.  I said it earlier on this blog:  This year, I am radicalized and want to burn the house down.  If i were to tell you that I have a very broad professional and personal circle of friends and acquaintances who agree with me, it would only be anecdotal.  But many of us have now moved on.  This election is just a little roadbump.  Four years of whomever is no big deal.  This son of two PhD's pretending to be one of the brothers is just too much:  Those of us with advanced degrees are never poor, just broke.  There's always a way to support our families and to move up.  His entire life story is an invention and in this election, the one who worked the hardest and came the furthest is Clinton.  God bless her.  (And, incidentally, I respect--enormously--the fact that she never says a bad word about her family, neither a father who might have been controlling and abusive, and a difficult husband.) Thanks again, Angry Mouse.  See ya in 2012.  

                      •  So I take it you are willing (0+ / 0-)

                        to stand aside while McCain continues the Iraq War, starts the Iran War, and nominates the justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade?

                        I'm only 19, and the 04 primary was the first one I paid attention to. Kerry was the 'electable' one. As much as I like John Kerry, I don't think we picked him because he would have been the best president. We picked him because we thought he could win. Clinton has trumpeted this 'electable' nonsense this year, along with the whole 'experience' thing. I really don't know, but when was the last time a candidate ran on 'electability' and was actually elected?

                      •  Thank you, but... (0+ / 0-)

                        I fully appreciate that you are "radicalized."  I don't blame you.

                        My feeling is this: I will vote for Obama in November.  The Democrats have been promising us that if we just put a Democrat in the White House, and give them a few more seats in the Senate, they'll right our country.  I have a hard time believing them, considering how useless they've been since 2006, but I'm willing to give them another shot.

                        BUT...

                        I expect to see some progress for women this time around.  I expect to see Obama reach out to women, to make amends with us, to show us that he understands that his victory is also a loss to us because it means our dream, which seemed so close, is still unrealized.

                        And I expect to see the damage to Roe undone.  I expect to see major legislation that rolls back all the restrictions.  I expect a Democratic Congress, with President Obama, write Roe into the legislation.

                        I expect to see a Democratic Congress and President Obama try to fix some of the other damage done, i.e., the Supreme Court's dreadful decision on equal pay.

                        The Democratic party has a lot to prove to me now, gavrik.  And I'll give it one more shot, but you know, if they don't get that, and they don't make any effort toward that end, then yeah, I'll see in 2012.

          •  agreed - marriages are a strange, wonderful, (0+ / 0-)

            frustrating mingle of compromises and unique to each couple....but he really ticked me off for throwing away so much possibility for so many for the fleetness of sex - whether Hillary stayed with him, forgave him, or whatever was and is totally HER call

      •  She Should Have Divorced Him Over Welfare Reform (0+ / 0-)

        As a long time divorce lawyer who saw all too many women un-necessarily break up their marriages over their husband's passing infidelities, I thought Hillary's decision not to divorce Bill over the Lewinsky incidents quite sensible.

        But I also thought that if Hillary were really a feminist, she would have threatened to divorce Bill Clinton, if not actually done so, over his Welfare Reform Act, which was devastating to millions of poor women and to their children.

        I don't recall Hillary actively fighting the passage of the Welfare Reform Act, which she could have done if she cared about the lives of women and children.

        Why now does she have the right to demand women's votes? She is undoubtedly smart and hardworking, but is she even a role model for the achievements of women?

        Hillary was appointed to the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart while (more likely, because) her husband was governor of Arkansas.

        Hillary won election to the Senate, not because of her political accomplishments, but because of her massive name recognition as Mrs. Bill Clinton, the president's wife.

        So too, Hillary was long the favored front-runner in the Democratic primary because of name recognition as Mrs. Bill Clinton.

        As a sixty-ish, long time feminist, I resent Hillary's attempt to exploit her gender to get women's votes when her policies simply don't justify it.

        I wouldn't have voted for Maggie Thatcher just because of her gender and I certainly won't vote for Clinton simply because of hers.

    •  Kudos (6+ / 0-)

      This is one of Hillary's primary flaws, in my mind.  She is, in many ways, a plastic candidate.  There seems to be little genuine about her.  Everything is predicated on gaining power.

      Hillary = Palpatine
      -2.75/-1.38

      by jkddude on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:21:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Also, one of the people who was elbowed (5+ / 0-)

      out of the way so that HRC could run for Senate in 2000 was Nita Lowey. Lowey is a life-long New Yorker and a long-time member of Congress from NY. FWIW she is also older than HRC. I don't hear a lot of talk about this among Hillary supporters.

  •  Female older than Hillary here (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tobendaro, MKSinSA

    and my support is based upon who is less corporate...having determined that corporate buy out/sell out  of America is perhaps our biggest problem.  Thus armed with what I hope is accurate info I supported:  

    1. Kucinich
    1. Edwards

    and after they fell by the wayside, now

    1. Obama

    And although Hillary would be much better than McCain on policies....she appears to running a close second to him in corporate backing.  She also repeatedly lied or else was delusional concerning that sniper fire...either of which is scarey.  

  •  Equality Doesn't Boil Down to a Female President (5+ / 0-)

    And, in any case, if polls are any indication, Hillary's candidacy has shown the equality of women just in getting very nearly the same number of votes that Barak has in the primary season.

    But it isn't that simple, of course. Hillary was not defeated because she's a woman and the country prefers men. She was defeated because she aligned with the forces that are losing power while Barak aligned with the increasing power of Internet-enabled populism. She went to the special interests to power her campaign and he went to the people's interests.

    If the power structure that we've come to all know and hate could hang on after the excesses of the Bill Clinton and George Bush eras, then she would have won. But we are seeing control wrested away form the "powerful". High time, too, IMHO.

    I have no doubt that Hillary wants to do good for the country, and would be enormously better than anything the Republicans have to offer. I think her heart is in the right place on many issues. But the Clinton's association with the DLC and her dependence on rich special interests are at odds with what she may want to accomplish. That has nothing to do with gender. It's a flaw that men have been all too susceptible to over the years.

    Would that we had had a woman run for President that also had a liberal bent and populist roots. It would be a great pleasure to see a woman in that office. But there is no scarcity of opportunity here, because the next series of Presidents will be Democrats and I have no doubt but that the Democratic Party will produce a liberal woman who taps in to the power of the people.

  •  White, Middle-Aged, Middle Class Woman for Obama (8+ / 0-)

    Yahha Queen Alice you go!!! I too wrote about this on Wednesday.

    Photobucket

    When good people of conscience give up the fight for justice, all is lost. Therefore you must not give up. www.politicalartwork.blogspot.com

    by EmilyD on Sat May 17, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM PDT

  •  Feminism is about choice... (3+ / 0-)

    ... not about agreeing with other women.

    A woman can choose to have a career or choose to raise kids at home. Both are legitimate choices. Both are compatible with feminism. The important thing is that she has the options.

    A woman can choose to keep her surname when she marries or to take her spouse's. Both are legitimate choices, and both women can be feminists. The important thing is that it's their choice.

    And, of course, a woman can choose to support whomever she wants for president.

    There was a time in this country when women couldn't vote at all. Apparently some "feminists" want to move to a situation where women can only vote for one candidate. Both situations should be totally unacceptable to feminists with integrity.

    •  No... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pumpkinlove, gavrik

      Feminists want to move to a situation where they have equal representation in their government.

      We're not there yet.  Far from it.  So choice is great and all, but what good is choice if you don't use it?

      •  Link please (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mechascorpio

        I have never heard that espoused as a goal of feminists

        Please show me where that goal comes from

        "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin

        by bws on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:08:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh please. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pumpkinlove

          Why don't you show me all the links to support your analysis of feminism?

          I love when people proclaim that their understanding of feminism is the "true" definition -- and the rest of us don't get it.

          But hey, you want a link?  Fine.  Look at this one:

          http://www.emilyslist.org/

          •  There is no "true" definition (0+ / 0-)
            •  Um... (0+ / 0-)

              Actually, yeah, gonna have to disagree there.  And the reason I'm going to have to disagree is that back when I was a women's studies major, that was sort of whole point of my thesis.  I spent a year studying this very issue and concluded that although feminists are all over the place with their priorities, there actually IS a definition of feminism.

              The Third Wave, "new feminist" meme that there are many "feminisims", and therefore no real sense of "feminism," is, in my opinion, a pile of steaming hot horseshit.  No offense.

              •  Exactly. In Your Opinion. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                mechascorpio

                So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"

                by khereva on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                Your are right, and everyone else is wrong

                Got it :)

                "Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist" George Carlin

                by bws on Sat May 17, 2008 at 01:47:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Whatever. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  gavrik

                  It's this kind of shit that makes me so ashamed of my party.  You people really and truly are that incapable of realizing what has happened during this campaign, aren't you?

                  You really think you're so fucking enlightened and progressive because you don't need feminism anymore?  You don't need to elect women to government because, hell, as someone around here said, "Obama's as feminist as it gets."

                  And then you (as in the collective you) shake your heads in disgust at the women in this country who are questioning whether the Democratic party really gives a shit about them after all?

                  When people around here can say "fuck 'em, we don't need their votes," I really wonder how so much of the party can be so oblivious to the harm it has done.

                  Brava.

                  •  Angry Mouse - You're not getting the whole point (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    mechascorpio

                    here. It's not that we won't elect women. Of course we will. And of course we have.

                    I simply am not going to elect THIS woman.

                    She's demonstrated during her campaign just what kind of administration she would have. And I certainly don't want a re-run of that!!

                  •  did we say we don't need feminism? (0+ / 0-)

                    I don't think I read that any where so far in this thread - if anything I've been reading a lot of people being very proud to declare themselves feminists. The struggle for equality for ALL will be with us humans forever I'm sure - but we're a hell of a lot farther down the path then we as women were before the 60's - thank goodness - for all of us

                  •  It's more an age thing this time (0+ / 0-)

                    the election belongs to the young men and women now. We elder feminists and our brother gray hairs must step aside. They want Obama. I was for Edwards and was against Clinton's policies, nothing personal, nothing genderish, but a disagreement with the DLC. My kids were all for Obama. It's their country now. The presidents who have represented out generation? Not that outstanding. When the young adults say they want change - that their polite way of saying what we rudely said in the 60's about the older generation who dragged the country and our peers into vietnam. It's time to let go.

                    Fund the Obama campaign, not the fear campaign. Fear feeds the dragon.

                    by mrobinson on Sat May 17, 2008 at 10:08:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Oh please stop it. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Queen Alice

                    It's OK to attack Obama supporters as being anti feminists but it's not ok for them to fight back saying they ARE feminists but choose not to support Hillary.  

                    You wrote this nice diary about getting over it and moving on a while back but don't understand that it's not just the supporters of the losers who have hurt feelings.  These feelings aren't going to go away unless we talk about them and people accept that they are being unfairly hurtful.  

                    I do understand the need to elect more women but they have to be qualified women and Hillary, in my honest view, isn't.  Now, we can disagree on that point for all eternity, have that discussion again in eight years, or just agree to disagree and move on.

                    When I vote for a president there are two criteria, they must be pro choice and they must be the best candidate in whatever other issues are most important to me at that time in that order. If there were two candidates who were close, I'd then pick the woman. I'm sure there are many people (mostly Republicans) who think that my choosing criteria is wrong.  Both Hillary and Barack qualify for the first but only Barack makes it past my second criteria.  Therefore, I never get to the 'select a woman if all else is equal stage'.  There are several women that I think will pass both my prereqs in 8 years.  I especially like McCaskill and will be watching and donating to her going forward.

                    On a local level I vote for many more women than men, including Republican women who I think are close enough to centrist.  We haven't nearly finished the job getting women into the senate even!  These kinds of changes take time, as frustrating as that is.  When we get fairer representation at all levels then there will be a larger field to pick from to find a suitable woman president.  

              •  C'mon - I teach the stuff (0+ / 0-)

                I'm not that stupid!!

                •  I never said you were stupid. (0+ / 0-)

                  But, frankly, I take issue with much of the material taught in Women's Studies programs,