Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Talking 'bout my Generation, not my Gender
Several recent posts on TPM have inspired me to consider the reasons why Hillary Clinton’s supporters think so highly of her and so poorly of Barack Obama. Polls have indicated that the most loyal Hillary supporters are older women, in particular white women, and it would therefore seem that gender and race play an important role in their positions. While gender and race have in fact been prominent topics in the Democratic primary, I do not think that female support for Hillary is based on simple gender identification or simple racism but rather on a generational experience surrounding these issues.
First let me emphasize that both racism and sexism still exist in this country and as such should not be dismissed by supporters of either candidate. Through my own personal experiences, I can testify to the insidious and persistent problem of sexism. These experiences have allowed me to see the world from the perspective of the feminist movement that so strongly supports Hillary. At the same time, my generational response to these experiences has led me to identify not with the Hillary candidacy but rather with the themes promoted by the Obama campaign.
In my case, I was fortunate to enter college in the late ‘70s at a time when increased academic opportunities were opening up to women due to the passage of Title IX. I decided to study physics, but I quickly discovered that sexist attitudes were still firmly entrenched in the academic world. From my first physics class to my present job, a male-dominated and male-oriented culture has been present that places women at a significant disadvantage. My worst experiences were in graduate school, however, where female students were often made to feel inferior and unwelcome by male students and professors alike. I also had the misfortune of joining a research group in which I was harassed for several years by a male student. The trauma of the harassment was secondary, however, to the betrayal I felt from my research advisor who held me to be equally responsible for not learning to deal with the “cultural differences”. I believe that such blame-the-victim experiences are not at all uncommon, and in fact we saw the same attitudes being displayed on the national scene when Anita Hill was vilified by male senators during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.
So why am I not a Hillary supporter if I have had such personal experiences with sexism? Shouldn’t I believe that electing a women president would help end such attitudes and behavior? Actually no, because first of all I understand that my experiences are not limited to women. While there are very few women in physics, for example, there are even fewer traditional minorities in the field. Racism and sexism are two sides of the same coin. In fact, I was quite distressed when Geraldine Ferraro declared that Obama would not be where he is today if he were not black, especially since I have had the same thing said to me but with the word “black” replaced by “woman”. I felt an utter disbelief that a woman would say such a thing when women should know all too well how it feels to be dismissed and marginalized in that way.
However, I realize now that the issue is not just about race or gender but also about generation. Older women and African Americans who were on the front lines of the equal rights and civil rights battles have a different life experience than the rest of us, as Obama mentioned in his speech, but they also have a different mind set. They had to be single-minded, fearless, and totally dedicated to their cause. Possibly for this reason, there was not a lot of crossover activism between movements (and even Martin Luther King Jr. was pressured from within his own circles to not expand into the anti-war effort). While fundamental and significant victories were achieved on both fronts, women and African Americans know from experience that the battle is not over but has just changed in scale and scope, and thus the champions of the movements carry on. This is reflected in Geraldine Ferraro’s views that the endorsements of Obama by high profile delegates such as Chris Dodd and John Lewis are just the case of men sticking together. Gloria Steinem has also joined in the fray by claiming that it is harder for women to be elected than for black men. Of course, in reality it is a disadvantage to be black or female in this society, and it is not useful to pit one group against the other. Unfortunately, Ferraro and Steinem are representative of the generation of women who do not see beyond the gender lines that have defined them for so long.
It is no surprise then that many of Hillary’s staunchest supporters come from this earlier generation of the women’s movement, with Hillary’s campaign representing the ultimate realization of their goals: a female president. This overshadows even Hillary herself, who does not appear to have been a leader in the women’s movement and does not seem to be especially feminist in her positions. She put her own political ambitions on hold to follow her husband in his political career, and even put up with his serial philandering while doing so. While I do not judge her for her decisions, I am disturbed, however, by the sense of entitlement that is expressed by her supporters that it is now Hillary’s time, as if something is owed to her. What has she done that we should consider her the heir apparent to the office of the president? I have found the unquestioning devotion of women’s groups to Hillary, both now and since the Clinton presidency, to be rather surprising since Hillary does not represent the feminist role model that inspired my generation of women. It is more likely that she connects with older women who may have felt the societal pressures to put their own aspirations aside for the sake of their husbands and families and who see themselves in Hillary.
If Hillary represents the political champion of this generation of women, it is not surprising that Obama appears to them to be a mirage, someone who does not represent anything real. He is not iconic in the way that Hillary is. However, for the same reasons that Hillary does not connect with me, Obama has emerged as a candidate whom I can relate to. Maybe this is because I am the same age as Obama and, like him, we grew up in the ‘60s and ‘70s. As such, we were part of the first generation that was able to enter into adulthood with options that had been made possible by the civil rights and equal rights movements of those times. Our generation did not have to break open the doors of access and opportunity (although we had to push hard to keep them open), and so we did not have to be so single-minded in our views. Possibly for this reason, I have found my involvement in women’s groups such as NOW to be unsatisfying and uninspiring in spite of my strong feminist views. I had particular difficulty with the narrow focus of the women’s agenda and, in many cases, the disconnect of this agenda from greater social issues such as culture, race, and poverty that impact many women’s lives. This lack of connectedness has continued into the present where we see that the key progressive movements of this decade, namely the anti-globalization and anti-war efforts, are noticeably lacking in any significant participation from traditional women’s rights organizations (as opposed to the newer breed of women’s groups such as Code Pink).
It would seem then that there is a generational divide that results in quite different attitudes among women, even those who are deeply committed to gender equality. I believe that problems of sexism, racism, and social injustice cannot be solved independently of each other, and for this reason I feel a connection with Barack Obama and his message of unity and change. The older women who support Hillary may dismiss Obama’s message as just empty words that have no substance to them. This may be true to them because they have been looking at the world through a gender-based lens for so long. Even now as Hillary’s chances for the nomination are being acknowledged by the media as almost impossible, groups such as Emily’s List are dumping money into her Pennsylvania campaign and female supporters are blaming the male-dominated political system for Hillary’s downfall. While their desperate efforts to sustain Hillary’s candidacy are becoming increasingly negative, Obama’s message strikes a resonance with me and many others who are trying to figure how we can live together in a society that has emerged out of the civil rights and women’s rights movements and who’s future is built on their foundation of equality and respect for all.
Comments (109)
Excellent post. Definitely recommended.
April 1, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well written and thought out.
Recommended.
April 1, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, I take issue with one point though. If I am to put words in your mouth I apologize. That Hillary was not especially feminist due to "to follow her husband" etc. strikes me as taking an element of a committed partnership as being opposed to feminism. If I am not understanding correctly, please clarify for me.
April 1, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for bringing up this point. I have to first say that the meaning of “feminist” is somewhat broadly defined and can mean different things to different people. However, I did not mean to imply that it was only the fact that she followed Bill throughout his career that makes her feminist credentials someone questionable.
However, it does seem to be more of a problem to me that she did not pursue her political career on her own terms but rather used Bill’s presidency as a springboard for the Senate seat and now the presidency. Many female politicians have become very successful and powerful by working their way up through the system by getting elected to local and state offices first and establishing their own constituency. I do not know anything about Nancy Pelosi’s husband or Olympia Snowe’s husband or whether most female politicians are even married. To me, the fundamental thing about feminism is that a woman chooses a path in life that is not defined or determined by her relationship to a man. I don’t have a problem with Hillary wanting to be president but she doesn’t seem to have been done it on her own terms. If she had not been married to Bill Clinton but was only Hillary Rodham, would she have been elected to the Senate on her first run for elected office and would she have been considered the front runner for the presidency?
Of course, she does have her own record to stand on and while she has certainly accomplished a great deal in her life, I don’t know if ambition and a thirst for power can necessarily be called feminist. I consider her to be a corporate democrat which usually involves supporting big business interests over the welfare of working women and children. One of the key achievements of the Clinton presidency was welfare reform, which was strongly criticized by children’s activists and women’s groups. More recently, her recent alliances with the religious right have resulted in the support of freedom of religion legislation that says pharmacists don’t have to sell contraception or security guards don’t have to protect abortion clinics, etc. if their religious views are in conflict. Finally, she voted for the Iraq war and still hasn’t admitted that it was a mistake. Warmongering doesn’t seem like a feminist value.
April 1, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Corporate Democrat - sure.
Not a Champion Feminist, ok.
But I personally think the argument that she might not have been elected to the Senate without the name recognition is a fallacious argument and accomplishes nothing but smearing Hillary without providing a valid argument. This is further highlighted by your "well she does have somewhat of her own record". It denigrates the valid points that are clearly illustrated by her voting record.
As for her subjugating herself to Bill - who is to say what created the dynamic. Current events clearly show that Bill is the consummate politician, whereas Hillary is the policy wonk. She may not have been interested in running enough to enter politics at the time (although her experiences in the field probably perked her interest). To categorically claim she has only pursued her political career on Bill's coattails is without much merit. More likely, he went first as the most likely candidate, and she developed her desire after assisting with so many campaigns.
Anyway - we are both making shit up.
April 1, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me a break. Hillary Rodham would not have been elected to her first office as Senator of one of the largest states in the nation where it not her position of having been first lady.
You have to go back 64 years to find someone (Wayne Morse here in Oregon) elected as U.S. Senator without having first held a lower elected office.
The harsh truth that the diarist points out is valid, Clinton is where she is because of who she married. That is not to say that she isn't skilled, or have the qualities that she might have been able to be elected (eventually) to the U.S. Senate on her own if she were never married to Bill Clinton, but she would have had to rise through the ranks like every other elected pol (Feinstein, Boxer, Snowe, Klobuchar, etc.)
April 2, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stick by my original point - to say HRC could not have been elected without being Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot be proven. Sure you can say there is anecdotal evidence, but that is not proof.
The same goes for Obama - how far back in US history do we have to go to prove that the US can elect a black man for President?
Or what about electing a Senator as President?
I am not saying it is not true, just that it is unprovable and serves more to smear her than anything.
April 2, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really? Have you forgotten Robert F Kennedy?
April 2, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, though he had held a cabinet position for 4 years and prior to that served as the chief counsel of the 1957–59 Senate Labor Rackets Committee.
April 2, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait, what about Daniel Patrick Moynihan?
April 2, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken, though he was permanent UN ambassador to the UN prior to being Senator, and was on the National Security Council as well and had run for office before (though lost).
April 2, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ok, I'm with you on that. : )
April 1, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of 34 women who served in the US Senate, 17 were put there by special appointment or special election, typically at the death of their husbands. Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a Maryland Congressman/Mayor and her husband is rather wealthy. She got into office because the previous Congressman died, his wife was put into succeed him and she got ill, so she chose Nancy. This is a fairly typical route to power for women or they don't get there at all. I don't know why you don't know that and why you can't go to Wikipedia to find out basic facts without writing paragraphs and paragraphs of pseudo-feminist gobbledy-gook.
Feminism has been eaten as much by uninformed women as it has by malicious or uncomprehending men. Sadly, you're following a well-trodden tradition.
By the way, here's a well-written testimonial from a devoted activist feminist who found herself giving up a job slot to a well-privileged black female in the name of "affirmative action". All of this talk involves hard tough choices for some people, not just a simple "that's good, that's bad" valuation.
April 2, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your odd line of argument seems to be: HRC did benefit from the privileges of sexism (the high name recognition of her husband's name, and her marriage to powerful politician Bill Clinton) but that the diarist is out of line (and ignorant of feminism) because you claim this is "a typical route for women or they don't get there at all".
You cite as evidence (and you rather condescendingly dismiss the diarist for failing to do due diligence in her research), the claim that of the 34 women who served in the Senate that 17 of them where there by special appointment or special election, most succeeding their dead husbands. Perhaps our math differs, but my math says your 17 only amount to 50% of 34, so I would suggest that your claim that "or they don't get there at all" is at least wrong half of the time. You seem to imply that succeeding dead husbands is the only way women have been ("or they don't get there at all") and in so doing, you dismiss the 17 women who made it on their own unknown names, their own biographies, their own merits, without a special appointment or special election to succeed their dead husbands (if they were married at all).
As a second wave feminist, who has survived quite a number of feminist wars, I find the diary to be quite credible, clearly we disagree on this.
April 2, 2008 7:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I didn't say the other 17 "made it on their own unknown names". Hillary counts as one of the 17 who weren't appointed or got in via special election. I could go research the other 16 to see if they pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, but I think I'd rather do something more productive like watching the goldfish bowl to see if the rocks need de-mossing.
April 2, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh ta-roo ta-ray, the rocks are all clean and shiny, so I have a moment or two.
Diane Feinstein, one of the 16 other self-made women, having been promoted to the San Francisco Mayor's office suddenly after the preceding mayor and supervisor were assassinated.
Mary Landrieu, daughter of a New Orleans mayor and sister of the Louisiana Lt. Governor.
Barbara Boxer, wife of a prominent Oakland labor lawyer - "According to one story, which Boxer has acknowledged, originally Stewart was going to run for the Marin County Board of Supervisors back in 1972, but he decided the campaign would interfere with his law practice in Oakland — so Barbara ran for the seat instead. That led to the beginning of her political career." Okay, quasi self-made.
Barbara Mikulski - straight-away self-made (though elected with the help of EMILY's list). Good job.
Debbie Stabenow - self-made. Good job.
Amy Klobuchar - self-made, elected with help from EMILY's list. Good job.
Claire McCaskill - daughter of local politicians but self-made. Good job.
Patty Murray - chose to run against a candidate accused of serial sexual assault. Good move, kind of in the "exceptional circumstance" category even though it was her skill that made it pay off.
Maria Cantwell - daughter of prominent state & later national politician but worked very very hard to get elected. Kind of a half-way.
That's the Democrats on the list, I'm sure there's a variety on the other side. (E.g. Elizabeth Dole's career is a bit hard to separate her successful Senate run from her husband's previous VP & presidential aspirations even though she certainly had an impressive career long before she met Bob).
April 2, 2008 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Writing from WA - Cantwell's father was prominent in local politics in Indiana, not WA. She may have learned how the game is played, early, but I think it's fair to say she really did do it on her own. cf: wikipedia entry for Cantwell
April 2, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, you're right - I missed that this was from 2 different states, she did it on her own.
April 2, 2008 8:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS I condescendingly dismissed the diarist for failing to do *any* research. Wiki and Google are your friends, just a click away. Hell, I can even get help on my failing language skills and avoid offending Latins when I quote Cicero.
April 2, 2008 8:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know she didn't do any research? Can you say with certainty that she knew all of this prior to writing this post? If she had done additional research, ask yourself this question (and be honest with yourself): isn't it likely that she wouldn't have researched the few questions that you thought needed research and so you'd still accuse her of needing to do research? It's easy to spot where research wasn't done (or not done well), but it's not so easy to spot where it was done well, right?
Cut her some slack, please.
April 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Christ Almighty, yes, if she did any research she hid it very well. Enough slack?
April 2, 2008 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The names Gore and McCain in terms of national politics did not start with Al and John. Both of their fathers were prominent politicians. Women aren't unique when it comes to familial nepotism, just admitted to the game later in history. Just as the Bush's are not the first father and son team (wasn't there a guy named John Adams? didn't he have a son?), they certainly won't be the end of familial politics. Thus, to say that woman have only had access to power because of there familial relations ignores the alternative hypothesis: that most men have as well. Its called a confirmation bias.
April 2, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure if this is in response to mine, or if it's trying to support or confirm, but yes, men often have help from their fathers and grandparents (Kennedys, Bushes, Rockefellers, Romneys, McCains) in various fields and no one seems to bat an eye. Actually the first I've heard Americans worry about "dynasties" came with the possibility of Hillary in a Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton "dynasty" as if the Clintons were responsible for the Bushes, or as if the Clintons were anything close to a prototypical banking/industrial dynasty family with a billion dollars spread across the landscape.
But in any case, it's no problem for a man to get help from his wife; it's out of bounds and unfeminist for a woman to get help from her husband.
April 2, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
For once, we're in complete agreement. :)
That said, I don't think anyone's actually convinced by that particular argument. It's more of a rationalization than an argument. (I.e., I don't like Hillary, so I'm going to create as big a list as possible as to why she shouldn't be President.)
April 2, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I'm not used to people acknowledging this.
April 2, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah heck. So what. I gave up a job for a poor white male with a young family once.
Now THAT's feminism.
lol
April 2, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that this aspect bears out your argument: To describe Hillary as a feminist requires this glaring exception in her behavior. I had parsed it as a "by any means necessary" methodology.
That is, I don't see Hillary as a feminist, but as a person determined to succeed. Given the late-Seventies environment you described, it would appear that she developed a keen eye for the best opportunity, coupled with the personal strength and motivation to stick to her choices and to make them work.
This seems to appeal to the demographic you mentioned, to the extent of ignoring any other evidence: These are the voters who are "all in" and cannot be convinced otherwise. There's nothing wrong with this in the realm of human behavior. It does present problems in the area of choosing the best leader, e.g., issues and current events seem confusing to one who has already made up his/her mind.
I continue to sense the same "win at all costs" mentality around Hillary that I did (and do) from George W. Bush. It occurs for me as irrational and dangerous. I happen to think that it describes how We the People have lost our way. I am not interested in a goal of personal achievement, above and beyond what is best for the country and for the world. It smacks of greed and disregard for morality, and recalls the same old non-working meme: "Let's make ourselves a lot of money and clean up the mess later."
The problem is that the mess never does get cleaned up: It becomes the norm, and shortly thereafter any attempts to resolve it are shouted down by those who have opportunistically exploited the aspects of the mess and have developed new revenue streams upon it.
Unfortunately, this does not imply that electing a reformer will make a difference. You can lead an addict to rehab, but you can't make him participate.
April 3, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not that I agree with it, but to subvert your career for that of your spouse is generally considered the more submissive role. Feminism often rejects that role for the woman, albeit shortsightedly.
After perusing HRC's wikipedia entry, I agree that casting her in an anti (or non) feminist light is a bight difficult. Casting her as a champion might also be difficult, but easier to do. She clearly has not ever taken an inordinately submissive role, and deserves credit for that.
April 1, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for your perspective.
April 1, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I only had to read the first paragraph to recomment this.
This is a definite generational thing, I have seen it in caucus and convention.
April 1, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well written - recommended for an insightful perspective.
Too bad we will not see Marginal Player adding to the color of the commentary.
April 1, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wonderful post and insightful analysis. My slightly different perspective may shed a bit more light on how we go about choosing our candidate in this election.
I'm a 60+ white guy who grew up in a conservative southwestern state where the schools were still segregated and intentionally unequal and the brightest girls were expected to be housewives and housewives only, a prospect that struck many of them as enforced segregation from the lives they wanted to lead.
I had great hopes for Hilary in this election. While you are right that many of her strongest supporters are the women of her generation who battled for women's rights, and it's also true that Obama has stronger appeal to a younger generation, I don't think generation or gender or ethnicity can explain why Obama ultimately got enthusiastic support from somebody like me.
From my generational perspective, I didn't dream that Hilary would casually incinerate the whole set of values that attracted so many people of different races, genders and ethnicities in the 1960s. The movements for Civil Rights, women's rights and an end to the Vietnam War were huge parts of that period, and while they sometimes moved in separate streams, they often came together, and people in those movements did share important values.
The values shared across the different movements were pretty basic. They had to do with wanting a political system that strove to give everybody a fair chance in life and allowed everybody to find voice. Politicians back then all kowtowed to a privileged, white, male-dominated corporate system that cared more about revenues from defense contracts than the survival of draftees or allowing women to compete in the workplace or blacks to enjoy the benefits of equal and higher education. The people in power didn't want war protests or racial progress or women's rights. They liked things the way they were.
The generation that came of age in and around the Sixties - mine and Hilary's generation - had great aspirations. Clearly we failed in most respects but for many of us, the aspirations never died. Your eloquent post has awakened memories of that more hopeful time, and also made me realize how much Hilary in this campaign has betrayed the aspirations that brought her generation to politics in the first place.
Obama revives the hopeful feelings of that period. Obama's speeches, however much Hilary derides them, are strikingly original yet awaken the same aspirations as the words of Martin Luther King and John Kennedy when they appealed to those better angels we've hardly seen of late.
If Hilary started her campaign with better angels on her shoulder, she decided at the first sign of trouble that those better angels had to be squashed like insects if she was going to win this nomination, and that no angel's company was worth a damn compared to holding great power.
Perhaps Hilary has stayed true at least to the values of the women's movement, but I doubt it. To me it seems more like Hilary is using feminists as a tool to realize her personal ambitions. I'd be willing to bet virtually all of those early and lifelong feminists are supporting Hilary because they think she carries the torch for their cause. Perhaps, for some of them, their cause will find total fulfillment when Hilary takes the oath of office, and they won't care if she alienates half the country as long as it's not their half. However, if the women of my generation are willing to settle for that, they have changed beyond all recognition.
Given the nation's rich history of lousy white male presidents, none worse than the current office holder, it makes perfect sense to give a woman a try, or a minority person of either gender. But what a shame it will be if the first president to break the white male mold embodies the worst of the divisive politics of recent years. Hilary seems determined to show she can play divisive political games as ruthlessly as Karl Rove or Richard Nixon. It's as though she thinks that's what equality means! Taking the White House is her right and no man can stop her from exercising it!
For those of us who came of age in the Sixties with such great hopes, seeing one of our own do what Hilary is doing is the worst possible outcome at this late time in our lives. We have to wonder what Hilary learned from seeing the Civil Rights Act passed, and Medicare enacted, and seeing Nixon's presidency come to grief over corrupting the electoral process with hardball tactics like burglarizing the offices of Democrats. You would think Hilary could draw certain lessons from Martin Luther King's and Kennedy's and Johnson's accomplishments and very different lessons from Nixon's failures, which she surely witnessed from a staff position in the Watergate investigation. It seems beyond strange that in seeking the Democratic nomination, Hilary has rejected the lessons of the Democrats who made the country more fair and humane, and instead chosen to embrace the bare-knuckles power-seeking of Nixon and the young nearly indicted Nixonian Karl Rove.
When Hilary embraced that approach, she created an opening for Obama by betraying the values of the Democrats of her generation. Obama chose to seek the presidency in a way that honored the values of Hilary's generation as she herself did not. It wasn't just Obama's eloquence that brought us to Obama, it was the values he expressed - values that reach across generations, genders and races, back to foundational American principles that came alive again, however briefly, in the Sixties. Obama believes in those values and Hilary does not.
Hilary is trying to convince us we have no choice but to nominate her. In fact, though, she has left us a choice. It's between Hilary and our values. If we choose our values, we choose Obama.
April 2, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you lifelongdem!
What a wonderful extended comment! It ought to be a post in its own right for everyone to read. You added so much insight that puts Hillary's political transformation into greater historical context than I could have.
I always appreciate hearing about other people's experiences and perspectives, and I appreciate your idealism after all these years.
April 2, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
lifelongdem: Please consider posting this as it's own blog. It deserves a wider audience.
April 2, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the kind words, clearthinker. I'm not sure my comments merit posting as their own blog; the ratio of reminiscence to analysis may be too high. Too much remembering, not enough clear thinking (!) about the present day!
Also, I'm new at participating in these discussions. I see interesting statements, try to refrain from commenting, then respond when I can't help myself.
Pathetic as it is to confess, I can't even find a help file that explains how to enter a statement here that is not in response to another statement. If I figured out how to do that, I'm not sure that would be posted as a blog.
This software is routine to you, but seems less straightforward than the antiquated computer conferencing software I used in a previous life - way back in the pre-blog era, before the internet was publicly accessible.
Is there a help file or is this all self-evident to everybody but me?
April 2, 2008 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
At the top right corner of the title block, there is a link that says
clicking the "Blog Now!" link will get you started toute suite
April 2, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me three. Blog away.
April 2, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd suggest you know close to nothing about LBJ, a man who got into office with the help and vote of several cemetaries and stockyards.
By the way, after numerous debates with Republicans in which they always seem compelled to misspell Democratic names and concepts, I'm wondering if there's something overt or subconscious that makes people misspell "Hillary"? Two l's, not one - it's in all the papers. Did you start spelling it with one 'l' after you gave up hope for Hillary, or before? I don't recall any Hillary fans ever misspelling it but numerous Obama fans and Republicans doing this. I guess I should ask what they think the correct spelling is, "Hillarious" or "Hilaryous" or something else?
April 2, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ooh, a spelling flame. Good show!
:-/
April 2, 2008 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, not really - it's simply a question of intent.
After seeing people repeatedly use the "Demorats", "Algore", the "Un", "Billary" and other grade-school tags, I simply was wondering whether this was ignorance or pettiness.
April 2, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obama supporter, I'll admit that I've noticed this myself and have often wondered whether it was intentional or not. I can't say for sure that I haven't seen [names of trolls omitted] use this misspelling as well, but I'm not entirely sure they actually are Hillary supporters, or if they're just pretending.
April 2, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the one with all the misspellings of Hillary's name, for which I apologize. It may be hard to believe, but I had no idea I was misspelling it. No malice or disrespect was involved. It has more to do with poor eyesight and expecting to see the other spelling.
I'm 60+, wear bifocals with the wrong focal length, it seems, for everything I look at. When I complained about things not being sharp enough with my last Rx, the ophthalmologist said "precataracts" are to blame. Distinguishing between single l's and double l's, lower case i's and l's, is a particular problem. I'm surprised and embarrassed how often I've done that in the case of HRC.
Just checked a name dictionary and the one "l" spelling is given first there; the spelling used by HRC's parents is the alternate. All the other famous women of that name seem to use one "l." In my case, the famous name I see often belongs to violinist Hilary Hahn. I'm a fan and see "Hilary" in large type on CD boxes pretty often because I like her playing of the Mendelssohn concerto more than anybody's since Isaac Stern.
Like you, Desidero, I find it exasperating when Republicans do things like calling the Democratic Party the Democrat Party. If my misspelling of HRC's name grated on you the way that does on me, I'm glad you spoke up. The extent of my explanation is an attempt to show good faith.
April 2, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, just checking.
April 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
As for my, I try to avoid using Clinton's first name at all, unless I need to distinguish between the two Clintons. We don't call Obama "Barack" after all. Perhaps it's my professional experience. In a business meeting or at court, using a first name is a thinly-veiled way to demean opposing counsel, humanize a witness, or infantilize anyone at all. She may want to be all warm and fuzzy by running as Hillary, but I don't need to follow...
April 2, 2008 6:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I often feel a bit weird myself, but with so much confusion between who's the real "Billary", I use Hillary fairly frequently.
Occasionally I switch to Barack so it doesn't seem too stiff and unfriendly.
April 2, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Failed to respond to your criticism of LBJ. Deeply flawed man. Let a lot of young folks die in Vietnam rather than admit a mistake. Mean to the wife whose money made his career. First election victory from a dubious recount. Eugene McCarthy's poem about LBJ seemed to capture the bad character - the bit about "gentling" deer by feeding them before shooting them down comes to mind.
In this context, though, I agree with Hillary (misspelled it again and caught the error this time). LBJ deserves credit for getting some landmark legislation passed, even if he did it under pressure from Robert Kennedy. Passing the Civil Rights Act and Medicare was no small accomplishment. I also give LBJ credit for hiring people like Bill Moyers. Suspect Moyers was behind language in LBJ's speeches like this:
"For a century we labored to settle and to subdue a continent. For half a century we called upon unbounded invention and untiring industry to create an order of plenty for all of our people.
The challenge of the next half century is whether we have the wisdom to use that wealth to enrich and elevate our national life, and to advance the quality of our American civilization.
Your imagination, your initiative and your indignation will determine whether we build a society where progress is the servant of our needs, or a society where old values and new visions are buried under unbridled growth. For in your time we have the opportunity to move not only toward the rich society and the powerful society, but upward to the Great Society."
Given our limited supply of good presidents, we have to take what heroism and eloquence we can find where we find it, even in deeply flawed men.
April 2, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
My point with LBJ was that aside from doing some very good things with Civil Rights, etc., he was also rather corrupt and a tough, not-always-fair pol. The implication that he or the Kennedy's were the bright untainted light of Democracy and the Democratic Party and that Hillary isn't living up to their great standard is what I was reacting to.
The term "bare-knuckles power seeking" might make me think of LBJ as well.
All our heroes are tarnished, but that makes for more interesting heroes.
April 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, reread my post to see where I gave the Kennedys and Johnson undue credit. I'm not sure I did. I simply expressed regret that Hilary doesn't seem to look to their specific *accomplishments* as her models rather than to Nixon's dirty political tactics after witnessing both at close hand. That's different from suggesting Kennedy and Johnson were "bright, untainted lights of democracy." They did get something done to further what I think is a great cause, and that cause was not setting whites against blacks or blacks and women against each other.
Johnson is a fascinating figure. As a Texan, Johnson voted with the Dixiecrats on racial legislation in the 1950s. Since he also spent early years doing things like teaching Mexican kids in slums and trying to ease black unemployment, it's possible his heart was in the right place on some important issues all along. Was he a man without conviction who backed Civil Rights just to make himself a more popular Democrat in the 1960s and opposed Civil Rights just to get himself elected in Texas in the 1950s? I don't know. I haven't read a good Johnson biography because I never much liked the man.
April 2, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Med-ded-ved, Med-ved-med, whatever..."
April 2, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
She "put up with her husband's serial philandering"? Oh tell me, wise one, what you would have done?
The Paula Jones thing, if true, would have been from some 3 years before. The Gennifer Flowers one-nighter was from years before. Monica Lewinsky was 2 years gone when the scandal hit.
Do you recommend women throwing their marriages out the window anytime they catch their husbands cheating? Should women always be held responsible for their husband's escapades? Should women be shunned for entering traditional marriages where they more support their husbands' careers?
How do you define feminism exactly?
Long meandering muddy post that seems to make you happy but clarifies nothing. Do you even realize there was a political element to the Clinton scandals? If so, how does that affect your equation?
April 2, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm only answering because you asked. If it would've been me, I would've divorced him after the second time it happened, if not the first. Now keep in mind, I'm only answering this question because you asked it. Sure, one can argue that she had a daughter to think of, but what kind of message did it send to Chelsea that Hillary put up with not one, not two, not even just three of these affairs but far more than we probably know about? Again, I'm only telling you what I would've done. Of course she's entitled to do whatever she finds right. However, since I was asked, I'm telling you what I would've done. Sound somewhat familiar? ;)
April 2, 2008 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're forgetting one thing--she was the wife of the President, and hers isn't just a marriage, it's a political partnership. And I suspect that if all women did leave their husbands even after a second offense the divorce rate would be even higher than it already is.
April 2, 2008 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sigh. Goddamn. Has anyone been in love?
April 2, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course many of us have. Your point?
April 2, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah. Point taken.
Acceptance is certainly part of love. Without that, there likely ian't love. Merely infatuation.
Sometimes I hope none of these people ever have kids. The "one strike and your out" rule just wouldn't work too well with kids.
April 2, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
A) You'll notice I went out of my way to say it wasn't a one strike and you're out rule, but more of a five strikes and you're out sorta thing.
B) I only brought it up because "I was asked". (I.e., it was a none-too-subtle satirical riff on Hillary's explanation of what she would've done had she been in Obama's place.)
April 3, 2008 6:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've hit the "recommend", but I am going to take issue with part of your conclusion.
I realize that saying this may make the walls fall in on top of me, but until relatively recently, Obama's word have sounded empty because though there's some stuff on his website, whenever he'd get a national stage he'd just hammer on "hope" and "change". And, during the early rallies that I've seen, a lot of his "initiatives" were mostly along the lines of "we should really do something about that".
I first posted to my now-dormant blog on this subject, more than a year ago and whenever I've mentioned it, I've said that he'll need to get better and more specific with his plans to be victorious in the fall election.
I'm on record on this website as being in favor of a continued race, part of my reasoning is because Obama has been getting better with expressing his positions and as some analysts have noted, he's having to learn how to connect to a more diverse audience. As far as I'm concerned, all of these factors and a few others have made him a better candidate than he was just a few months ago.
And finally, I'll add that as a child of the feminist movement, my mother and her generation, which includes Hillary, Steinem, etc. had to be somewhat concrete about their demands. If you recall, a large part of the reason the ERA actually went down was based on the argument that it was covered by existing law. And, a lot of what was gained by both the Civil Rights and Feminist movements were very specific goals and though there was some flowery rhetoric towards the beginning, measurable and achievable goals were being required by the end.
April 2, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
WaldenGirl,thanks for a marvelously insightful post.Altough I'm a man, your thoughts regarding the generational gap hit home for me. I was raised in a house with 4 sisters and a very in-charge mom. Mom and 2 sisters are hardcore Hillary supporters,one of whom is quickly tiring of Hill's smear-n-fear tactics. Of the other 2 sisters,one recently passed away and the other is,gulp, a republican. I've often felt Mom has a lot of unexpressed frustration over subverting her own needs/ambitions to raise 7! kids while my Dad,a Teamster,was usually on the road.Who could blame her? I'm sure she and one sister will come around and support Obama, but oddly, the youngest is the resident racist in the family and I don't think she'll vote at all. In fairness,she never moved out of the house and has the narrowest life-experience of any of us. As for the republican sister, I just yesterday sent her a copy of Obama's Audacity of Hope. I don't know if she'll read it but she's a smart and compassionate woman so we'll see. Thanks again to giving voice to what many of us, male and female, are feeling about these two candidates.
April 2, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fantastic post—illuminating, well-written, and rooted in an honest examination of personal experience. Looking forward to more posts from you, WaldenGirl.
April 2, 2008 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, intelligently written.
You express the sentiments I have had for a very long time. I am 57 years old, a white female and definitely a feminist, and I do not see Hillary Clinton as an effective model for feminism. I find the traditional feminist movement myopic to the point of illogic on this and any number of issues that concern gender, civil rights equality and a commitment to basic progressive principles. I have been disturbed by Hillary's exploitation of gender throughout this contest.
Hillary supporters, I think you will find your issues addressed and advanced by a President Obama, most likely moreso than with a President Hillary Clinton. He will reach out in a meaningful way to explain to you why his presidency will be effective for your issues, and I hope he can win your support.
Hillary's squandering of the black vote, and her dismissal and demeaning of anyone who doesn't agree with her sense of entitlement, leads me to conclude that she will do nothing to win back my support. She will demand it with a "who else are you going to vote for?" approach that I find insulting.
I repeat: I am confident that feminists will be very pleased with the progress a President Obama will make on their behalf. Other than the figurehead of a woman in the White House, I doubt that your issues will be as effectively addressed.
Please give him a chance.
April 2, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a wonderful post - very thoughtful analysis.
Highly recommended and thank you.
April 2, 2008 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think there is some arrogance in the older generation towards the younger. I see a lot of condescension towards Obama. Some may be race-based ("empty suit" -- as if they can't believe an African American is smarter than a white woman) but a lot of it is generational.
It is a new world, and time to hand the torch to a new generation of leaders, to get the young people involved and fired up. But some aging Boomers cling to the torch and won't let go.
It seems they can only think of their own glory and relevance, and can't do what's good for the country and the future. After all, the young people will have to live with the mess they've made.
April 2, 2008 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember when JFK said "the torch has been passed to a new generation"?
April 2, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Desidero, I object to your demeaning of Nancy Pelosi's career accomplishments.
1. Nancy's father was mayor of Baltimore & a congressman from Maryland. She built her political career 3000 miles away in San Francisco. Other than the fact that she may have learned some political acumen at his knee, her connection to him had little or nothing to do with her political success.
2. Yes, her husband is wealthy. So? There is certainly nothing unique about politicians using family wealth & connections to facilitate their entry to politics. Very few politicians of either gender are self-made millionaires.
3. She was NOT appointed to political office when a congressman died & his wife was unable to fill his shoes. And she didn't get there by being the wife of a politician who had no personal credentials for office of her own. When she was designated by Sala Burton, she had already begun her political career at the grass roots level & had served as Democratic Party Chair for Northern California. She was designated because she had already positioned herself as a credible option. But the support of Sala Burton only went so far. Nancy had to win a special election to win the seat & then had to eventually win a general election. Beyond that, she certainly didn't rise to the position of Speaker of the House based on anything other than her own merits. She strikes me as a bright, thoughtful, articulate person & I am proud ro have her represent me regardless of gender or any other extenuating factors.
It isn't only women who are appointed to political office to fill someone else's shoes so that the party can have an incumbent to run in the next election. Ted Kennedy's entry into the senate was blatant nepotism for an unqualified candidate to repllace his brother. This kind of thing happens all the time in politics & is not at all restricted to women. Don't you think that Trent Lott's recent resignation from the senate will lead to the appointment of a political hack so that the Republicans have an incumbent in place for the next election? Nancy Pelosi's appointment fits more the traditional political appointment of a party operative positioned to get the nod fortune smiles on her/him by placing that person in the right place at the right time. This is far different than the case of a wife-in-waiting or a brother-in-waiting (Kennedy). At some point, you also have to judge the person on his/her own merits to see if s/he has risen above the level of hack & has seized the opportunity to become someone of substance & credibility in their own right. Pelosi & Kennedy have certainly passed this test & it is dismissive of Nancy's accomplishments on her own not to recognize this.
I was living in Connecticut during Chris Dodd's first run for congress. He was very open with town committees that they should support them exclusively becasue his name is "Dodd." He was blatantly trading off on the positive reputation of his senator father in the state. He won in a lnadslide. very typical & very common.
The problem with Hillary's campaign is that she has advertised herself as the experienced candidate, insulting the intelligence of anyone who listened to this drivel. She than compounded the sin by insulting her opponent with the dismissive: "I have a lifetime of experience & he has one speech." What a bald faced lie!
Obama too has a life time of experience. His life just hasn't been as long as hers. But he's older than Bill Clinton when he ran. If Hillary has 35 years of experience, Barack has 22. The fact is that Hillary has 7 years of experience in elective office, which is normally the experience that anyone would cite in such a situation. Rather than explain the relevance of her different kinds of additional experience, Hillary chose instead to exaggerate her own accomplishments & to demean those of her opponent. Not a very attractive quality in a political candidate. In contrast, Nancy Pelosi has 21 years of experience in elective office alone. She too has a lifetime of experience. Don't we all?
April 2, 2008 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
In support of your point about women not being the only ones to profit from marrying names and money, I would add that men often marry into money and use their wives' wealth and connections to launch political careers, like LBJ with Ladybird.
We can't expect all male politicians to have the gumption to inherit oil wealth like the Bushes or a fortune multiplied by their father's bootlegging like the Kennedys!
One of the nice things about the Clintons was that they were not part of the parade of hereditary millionaire politicians.
It's kind of nice that neither Hillary nor Obama sees the world through the prism of inherited wealth. Both have probably earned most of their wealth by writing books. That's not an incorruptible profession, but it's less corruptible than oil and military contracting.
April 2, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
(cough) McCain (cough)
April 2, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting, Lestat. I didn't know McCain partook in that way. Still, we should judge him on his own acts and policies instead of the resources his wife brought his career.
I seem to remember reports of one political commentator taking advantage of his wife's fortune to buy The New Republic. I didn't mind that. It was what happened to the magazine that bothered me.
April 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
From a 2000 New York Times article A Beer Baron and a Powerful Publisher Put McCain on a Political Path:
There would be no Senator McCain were it not for the money and influence he married into, despite his pedigree of military brass.
April 2, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, is there any chance I could, with your permission repost your article here on my blog (giving you credit for it and links back to this, etc.)?
April 2, 2008 5:02 PM | Reply | Permalink